Messages in this thread | | | Date | Tue, 1 Jun 1999 17:36:57 -0400 (EDT) | From | <> | Subject | Re: Migrating to larger numbers |
| |
Keep in mind that 40 years ago we were just entering the "Second Generation Computers (1956-1963)" (http://www.digitalcentury.com/encyclo/update/comp_hd.html) which started out with the transistor. 40 years is a long time.
The problem is using a 64-bit time_t on a 32-bit system, especially on an embedded one where performance per $ counts... long longs are SLOW, and for such a commonly used value it would be a significant performance hit.
Sure, it would be nice, but so would a 128-bit value. That would solve time problems for quite a while, but it's just not practical. That's why Sun went the way of fixing it for 64-bit machines and letting the 32-bit machines fall to the wayside.
Oh. And keep in mind that linux won't even run on a 16-bit machine (although there was a port to the 286 at one point?)... :-) -Rob
On Tue, 1 Jun 1999, Ard van Breemen wrote:
> Date: Tue, 1 Jun 1999 07:39:40 +0200 (CEST) > From: Ard van Breemen <ard@cstmel.nl.eu.org> > To: linux-kernel@vger.rutgers.edu > Subject: Re: Migrating to larger numbers > > On Mon, 31 May 1999 hagopiar@vuser.vu.union.edu wrote: > > But there might be a way to compromise: Would it be possible to make > > uid_t/gid_t implementation specific? As I read it, __kernel_time_t is an > > unsigned long. If my memory serves (which is growing less and less likely > > these days), this means that it is a 64-bit value on 64-bit architectures > > and a 32-bit value on 32-bit architectures. This is the route that Sun > > took with their 64-bit architectures with time_t, based on the (IMO > > perfectly valid) assumption that in 38 years 32-bit binaries will be done > > with. > This is not a valid assumption, and there is 1 good example for that: > Y2K... > The idea that 32 bit will be obsolete is probably non-true. We are still > using 4 and 8 bit microcontrollers. By then a lot of 32 bit > microcontrollers will be common in regular appliances. Those appliances > will by then be more complex, and therefore need a base that already has > no time problems. > I can see the logica with the amount of users on a 32 bit system, but not > with the time. 38 years is not that long, and I know that there still will > be a lot of 32 bit controllers out there (and even 8 and 4 bit...) > > > -- > intel1: 7:29am up 26 days, 7:17, 10 users, load average: 0.00, 0.00, 0.00 > > > - > To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in > the body of a message to majordomo@vger.rutgers.edu > Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/ >
- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.rutgers.edu Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
| |