From owner-freebsd-arch Sat Oct 27 16:30:27 2001 Delivered-To: freebsd-arch@freebsd.org Received: from srv1.cosmo-project.de (srv1.cosmo-project.de [213.83.6.106]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 51F2937B403 for ; Sat, 27 Oct 2001 16:30:24 -0700 (PDT) Received: (from uucp@localhost) by srv1.cosmo-project.de (8.11.0/8.11.0) with UUCP id f9RNUIt55815; Sun, 28 Oct 2001 01:30:18 +0200 (CEST) Received: from mail.cicely.de (cicely20.cicely.de [10.1.1.22]) by cicely5.cicely.de (8.12.1/8.12.1) with ESMTP id f9RNTDSe037209; Sun, 28 Oct 2001 01:29:13 +0200 (CEST)?g (envelope-from ticso@cicely8.cicely.de) Received: from cicely8.cicely.de (cicely8.cicely.de [10.1.2.10]) by mail.cicely.de (8.11.0/8.11.0) with ESMTP id f9RNStF10374; Sun, 28 Oct 2001 01:28:56 +0200 (CEST) Received: (from ticso@localhost) by cicely8.cicely.de (8.11.4/8.11.4) id f9RNSmT45324; Sun, 28 Oct 2001 01:28:49 +0200 (CEST) (envelope-from ticso) Date: Sun, 28 Oct 2001 01:28:47 +0200 From: Bernd Walter To: Peter Wemm Cc: Matthew Dillon , arch@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: time_t not to change size on x86 Message-ID: <20011028012847.B44659@cicely8.cicely.de> References: <200110272114.f9RLEwv64429@apollo.backplane.com> <20011027213407.3E3B239F3@overcee.netplex.com.au> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20011027213407.3E3B239F3@overcee.netplex.com.au> User-Agent: Mutt/1.3.23i X-Operating-System: FreeBSD cicely8.cicely.de 5.0-CURRENT i386 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 On Sat, Oct 27, 2001 at 02:34:07PM -0700, Peter Wemm wrote: > Matthew Dillon wrote: > > 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. > > Well, time_t used to be 'long', which is 64 bits on 64 bit platforms > so it had to be safe. At least on current it's defined as int. NetBSD does define long, but also use int on 64 bit platforms. > > 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. > > Dont mess with UFS! Let Kirk do it properly with UFS2. We dont need > future timestamps in UFS, we actually do have 37 years to solve this one. Agreed. Removing the blocknumber limit is much more important until then. -- B.Walter COSMO-Project http://www.cosmo-project.de ticso@cicely.de Usergroup info@cosmo-project.de To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-arch" in the body of the message