From owner-freebsd-hackers Sat Aug 15 01:51:23 1998 Return-Path: Received: (from majordom@localhost) by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.8/8.8.8) id BAA05815 for freebsd-hackers-outgoing; Sat, 15 Aug 1998 01:51:23 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from owner-freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG) Received: from allegro.lemis.com (allegro.lemis.com [192.109.197.134]) by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id BAA05809 for ; Sat, 15 Aug 1998 01:51:19 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from grog@freebie.lemis.com) Received: from freebie.lemis.com (freebie.lemis.com [192.109.197.137]) by allegro.lemis.com (8.9.1/8.9.0) with ESMTP id SAA17385; Sat, 15 Aug 1998 18:20:45 +0930 (CST) Received: (from grog@localhost) by freebie.lemis.com (8.9.1/8.9.0) id SAA22506; Sat, 15 Aug 1998 18:20:33 +0930 (CST) Message-ID: <19980815182033.E22238@freebie.lemis.com> Date: Sat, 15 Aug 1998 18:20:33 +0930 From: Greg Lehey To: Terry Lambert , Matthew Hunt Cc: brawley@camtech.com.au, hackers@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Do we have a Y2K problem after all? (was 64-bit time_t) References: <19980814000605.A25012@astro.psu.edu> <199808142303.QAA23463@usr04.primenet.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Mailer: Mutt 0.91.1i In-Reply-To: <199808142303.QAA23463@usr04.primenet.com>; from Terry Lambert on Fri, Aug 14, 1998 at 11:03:14PM +0000 WWW-Home-Page: http://www.lemis.com/~grog Organization: LEMIS, PO Box 460, Echunga SA 5153, Australia Phone: +61-8-8388-8286 Fax: +61-8-8388-8725 Mobile: +61-41-739-7062 Sender: owner-freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG On Friday, 14 August 1998 at 23:03:14 +0000, Terry Lambert wrote: >>> Question: What is wrong with using an unsigned long for time_t, instead of >>> long (which is then assumed signed). >> >> man 3 time: >> >> Upon successful completion, time() returns the value of time. Otherwise >> a value of ((time_t) -1) is returned and the global variable errno is set >> to indicate the error. > > See also: > > http://www.eunet.pt/ano2000/sun/sup_sun5.htm A very interesting page. It doesn't have much to do with the subject of the purpose of time_t, but it does indicate that we haven't done all our homework relating to Y2K. How much of the changes suggested in this page should *we* emulate? > Negative values are (potentially) abused for dates back to December > 13th, 1901. I didn't see the word "abuse" anywhere in the page. What's wrong with using negative time_t if they're defined in the spec? 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-hackers" in the body of the message