Date: Mon, 2 Sep 2002 12:42:18 -0700 (PDT) From: Matthew Dillon <dillon@apollo.backplane.com> To: Poul-Henning Kamp <phk@critter.freebsd.dk> Cc: hackers@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: 64 bit API/ABI changes proposal for -current Message-ID: <200209021942.g82JgIZn032728@apollo.backplane.com> References: <55509.1030995196@critter.freebsd.dk>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
:>
:> All right, I'll amend the proposal to use 2^64. the fractional
:> element will be unsigned, the tv_sec will remain signed.
:
:That is exactly how bintime is defined :-)
:
: struct bintime {
: time_t sec;
: uint64_t frac;
: };
:
:If I had a int128_t, I would have used that instead...
:
:
:--
:Poul-Henning Kamp | UNIX since Zilog Zeus 3.20
Ok, we have an issue in regards to libc/user function visibility.
The bintime structures and functions are surrounded by __BSD_VISIBLE.
The question to you and to the list in general is: what to call the
user-visible structure. 'bintime' is a cute name, I certainly like
it better then timeval64, and we could probably get away with calling
the user visible structure bintime, but I don't know if we can get
away with including all the supporting inline functions (not that we
necessarily have to include them for the syscall work, but it would
be nice).
Also, the in-kernel time_t is 32 bits on 32 bit architectures so bintime
is not compatible as-is, but it would not be much work to make
bintime use time64_t. We can't create yet another userland time
structure without making seconds 64 bits.
-Matt
To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org
with "unsubscribe freebsd-hackers" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?200209021942.g82JgIZn032728>