Date: Sat, 15 Aug 1998 18:20:33 +0930 From: Greg Lehey <grog@lemis.com> To: Terry Lambert <tlambert@primenet.com>, Matthew Hunt <mph@pobox.com> Cc: brawley@camtech.com.au, hackers@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Do we have a Y2K problem after all? (was 64-bit time_t) Message-ID: <19980815182033.E22238@freebie.lemis.com> In-Reply-To: <199808142303.QAA23463@usr04.primenet.com>; from Terry Lambert on Fri, Aug 14, 1998 at 11:03:14PM %2B0000 References: <19980814000605.A25012@astro.psu.edu> <199808142303.QAA23463@usr04.primenet.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
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
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?19980815182033.E22238>