Date: Fri, 24 Jun 2016 11:07:10 +0000 From: "Poul-Henning Kamp" <phk@phk.freebsd.dk> To: Bruce Evans <brde@optusnet.com.au> Cc: Peter Wemm <peter@wemm.org>, freebsd-arch@freebsd.org Subject: Re: PowerPC 64-bit time_t Message-ID: <4641.1466766430@critter.freebsd.dk> In-Reply-To: <20160624194454.D1013@besplex.bde.org> References: <3FB65E20-0376-4041-86DE-F8CAB7F37314@freebsd.org> <20160609193128.GB34204@spindle.one-eyed-alien.net> <575A48D3.3090008@wemm.org> <20160624194454.D1013@besplex.bde.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
-------- In message <20160624194454.D1013@besplex.bde.org>, Bruce Evans writes: >The only practical option for i386 is to change to unsigned time_t before >2038 and hope that i386 goes away before that runs out in 2106. Changing >to uint32_t time_t mainly requires doing something with times before the >Epoch. These are unsupported in POSIX, but are supposed to work back to >1902 with int32_t in FreeBSD, except 1 second before the Epoch is the >same as the error code (time_t)(-1) so it doesn't work right. I'd recommend it, dates one timezones worth before epoch are far too common in contemporary traffic (particular HTTP). Why don't we make a i387[1] port where time_t is 64 bit and where we jettison the museum-ready IBM PC baggage ? [1] Of course a joke reference to floating point HW being mandatory. -- Poul-Henning Kamp | UNIX since Zilog Zeus 3.20 phk@FreeBSD.ORG | TCP/IP since RFC 956 FreeBSD committer | BSD since 4.3-tahoe Never attribute to malice what can adequately be explained by incompetence.
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?4641.1466766430>