From owner-freebsd-arch  Sat Oct 27 14:15: 1 2001
Delivered-To: freebsd-arch@freebsd.org
Received: from apollo.backplane.com (apollo.backplane.com [216.240.41.2])
	by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id F319937B401
	for <arch@FreeBSD.org>; Sat, 27 Oct 2001 14:14:58 -0700 (PDT)
Received: (from dillon@localhost)
	by apollo.backplane.com (8.11.6/8.9.1) id f9RLEwv64429;
	Sat, 27 Oct 2001 14:14:58 -0700 (PDT)
	(envelope-from dillon)
Date: Sat, 27 Oct 2001 14:14:58 -0700 (PDT)
From: Matthew Dillon <dillon@apollo.backplane.com>
Message-Id: <200110272114.f9RLEwv64429@apollo.backplane.com>
To: arch@FreeBSD.org
Subject: Re: time_t not to change size on x86 
Sender: owner-freebsd-arch@FreeBSD.ORG
Precedence: bulk
List-ID: <freebsd-arch.FreeBSD.ORG>
List-Archive: <http://docs.freebsd.org/mail/> (Web Archive)
List-Help: <mailto:majordomo@FreeBSD.ORG?subject=help> (List Instructions)
List-Subscribe: <mailto:majordomo@FreeBSD.ORG?subject=subscribe%20freebsd-arch>
List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:majordomo@FreeBSD.ORG?subject=unsubscribe%20freebsd-arch>
X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG

    Hmm.  This is interesting.  So far all the time code I've
    looked at in libc is already explicitly written to operate
    with a 64 bit time_t and there do not appear to be any (so
    far) dependancies on 'long' or any other int type assumptions.

    Methinks a couple of people have already taken a couple of 
    passes on the code.  The only real work is going to be
    rolling the syscalls and some relatively minor adjustments
    to UFS.  The rest of the kernel appears to be clean though
    I will need to take a second pass on netinet6 and nwfs.

    Now on to auditing the library code...

					-Matt
					Matthew Dillon 
					<dillon@backplane.com>

To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org
with "unsubscribe freebsd-arch" in the body of the message