From owner-freebsd-arch Sat Oct 27 20:16:44 2001 Delivered-To: freebsd-arch@freebsd.org Received: from mass.dis.org (mass.dis.org [216.240.45.41]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 053A937B403; Sat, 27 Oct 2001 20:16:43 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mass.dis.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mass.dis.org (8.11.6/8.11.3) with ESMTP id f9S3TTv21877; Sat, 27 Oct 2001 20:29:29 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from msmith@mass.dis.org) Message-Id: <200110280329.f9S3TTv21877@mass.dis.org> X-Mailer: exmh version 2.1.1 10/15/1999 To: arch@freebsd.org Cc: Mike Smith Subject: Re: time_t not to change size on x86 In-reply-to: Your message of "Sat, 27 Oct 2001 00:50:30 PDT." <20011027005030.D94651@dragon.nuxi.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Date: Sat, 27 Oct 2001 20:29:29 -0700 From: Mike Smith 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 > > Just to clarify, based on Peter's last mail. > > > > The proposal is not to change the size of time_t on x86, merely to > > select a suitable size on new platforms so that we migrate in a > > suitable fashion. > > What you describe is his *revamped* proposal. As one of the 3 in a > private thread that started this, I speak with greater knowledge on what > the proposal was. This isn't how Peter put it to me. And I stand by both his assessment of the situation, and his unwillingness to fight the issue beyond the reasonable. If you're foolish enough to try to pull this off, I'd much rather just let you all rot. -- ... every activity meets with opposition, everyone who acts has his rivals and unfortunately opponents also. But not because people want to be opponents, rather because the tasks and relationships force people to take different points of view. [Dr. Fritz Todt] V I C T O R Y N O T V E N G E A N C E To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-arch" in the body of the message