Date: Wed, 19 Aug 1998 09:23:26 -0600 From: Nate Williams <nate@mt.sri.com> To: Terry Lambert <tlambert@primenet.com> Cc: jbryant@unix.tfs.net, peter.jeremy@auss2.alcatel.com.au, freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: proposal to not change time_t Message-ID: <199808191523.JAA20095@mt.sri.com> In-Reply-To: <199808190503.WAA01910@usr06.primenet.com> References: <199808190235.VAA12287@unix.tfs.net> <199808190503.WAA01910@usr06.primenet.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
> > conversion would be best done in steps. if we do it now, it is likely > > that our method could be adopted by the large commercial unix > > companies out there, say five or ten years from now, sooner if they > > want to stay ahead of Mickey$oft. > > > > i'm just surprised the csrg didn't do this. > > Like, what, reserving 32 bits adjacent, in the right byte order, in > the struct dinode? 8-) 8-). See previous reply. You give them too much credit, since they are the same folk who removed the bits with the nanosec additions. Nate ps. The reason NetBSD doesn't have this is the same reason their CVS tree is not public. The code in their CVS tree is *still* pre-Lite bits, let alone Lite/Lite2. (Though I suspect they've imported some of the bits from both, though obviously not all of them.....) Nate 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?199808191523.JAA20095>