From owner-freebsd-arch Sat Oct 27 13:12:15 2001 Delivered-To: freebsd-arch@freebsd.org Received: from peter3.wemm.org (c1315225-a.plstn1.sfba.home.com [24.14.150.180]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4E23137B405; Sat, 27 Oct 2001 13:12:05 -0700 (PDT) Received: from overcee.netplex.com.au (overcee.wemm.org [10.0.0.3]) by peter3.wemm.org (8.11.0/8.11.0) with ESMTP id f9RKC4M51299; Sat, 27 Oct 2001 13:12:04 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from peter@wemm.org) Received: from wemm.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by overcee.netplex.com.au (Postfix) with ESMTP id 294B839F0; Sat, 27 Oct 2001 13:12:03 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from peter@wemm.org) X-Mailer: exmh version 2.5 07/13/2001 with nmh-1.0.4 To: Matthew Dillon Cc: Mike Smith , arch@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: time_t not to change size on x86 In-Reply-To: <200110271706.f9RH6ga47601@apollo.backplane.com> Date: Sat, 27 Oct 2001 13:12:02 -0700 From: Peter Wemm Message-Id: <20011027201203.294B839F0@overcee.netplex.com.au> Sender: owner-freebsd-arch@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk List-ID: List-Archive: (Web Archive) List-Help: (List Instructions) List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG Matthew Dillon wrote: > :> > it because it means that all the 64 bit issues can be worked out by > :> > the larger community running on standard intel platforms. Other peo ple > :> > like it because it (obviously) solves the 2038 problem. > :> > :> I do not like it because it creates **additional** problems that will > :> appear *only* on the i386. -current has got enough problems without > :> bullet holes through the feet of the primary platform. > :> > :> I'm quite happy with changing from 'int' to 'long', but *not* quad. > : > :As a followup, I wont fight to the bitter end if people are really > :convinced that it is a good idea and are going to firmly commit themselves > :to pick up the mess in both the src and entire ports tree. That means > :submitting patches back to the original distribution producers. > : > :But that the idea of it still gives me the creeps. I believe we'll be > :chasing bugs from this for years on the i386. > : > :> > DES and I have allocated time to work on it starting mid-november. > :> > Nobody else has comitted time yet. > :> > > :> > -Matt > : > :Cheers, > :-Peter > :-- > :Peter Wemm - peter@FreeBSD.org; peter@yahoo-inc.com; peter@netplex.com.au > > I think the absolute worst that can happen is that moving time_t to > 64 bits will have the same sort of impact on ports that moving off_t to > 64 bits had. I don't recall the off_t change as causing any significant > pain. FreeBSD had it from the get-go, but most of our ports were > compiled on systems with 32 bit off_t's. Glad you mentioned the off_t problem.. We're *still* finding off_t bugs in *OUR OWN CODE*!! How long has off_t been long long? Nearly 8 years now and we're *still* finding them! Cheers, -Peter To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-arch" in the body of the message