Date: Wed, 6 Jan 1999 07:38:42 +1030 From: Greg Lehey <grog@lemis.com> To: Peter Jeremy <peter.jeremy@auss2.alcatel.com.au> Cc: current@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: Y2K, Y 2038? Message-ID: <19990106073842.M78349@freebie.lemis.com> In-Reply-To: <99Jan5.205931est.40326@border.alcanet.com.au>; from Peter Jeremy on Tue, Jan 05, 1999 at 09:00:12PM %2B1100 References: <99Jan5.205931est.40326@border.alcanet.com.au>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Tuesday, 5 January 1999 at 21:00:12 +1100, Peter Jeremy wrote: > Jonathan Smith <jonsmith@fourier.physics.purdue.edu> wrote: >> Deal with it _now_ before the Y2038 Emergency is upon us and >> the world is freaking out over it. Perhaps an introduction of a 64 bit >> time, > > A much simpler change is to make time_t an unsigned long - that gives > us another 68 years grace - by which time I doubt many of us will be > overly concerned :-). > > There was a very similar discussion some months ago regarding the > timestamp field in the inode (on -hackers from memory). I don't > think the discussion went anywhere fruitful. Part of that discussion was concerned with the fact that, correctly or incorrectly, people use negative time_t's. This would break that for a comparatively minor benefit. Greg -- See complete headers for address, home page and phone numbers finger grog@lemis.com for PGP public key To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-current" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?19990106073842.M78349>