[lkml]   [2000]   [Jan]   [11]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
    SubjectRe: time_t size: The year 2038 bug Summary:
    On Tue Jan 11, 2000 at 05:51:34AM -0800, John Alvord wrote:
    > On Mon, 10 Jan 2000, David Schwartz wrote:
    > Rather then change the meaning of time_t, why not define an new value of
    > epoch_t which is currently zero. That way software can be converted
    > gradually and old software will continue to work unchanged. The
    > infrastructure will use the epoch_t value to do things the right way.
    > Given the recent Y2K scare, getting a label that says your software is
    > 2038 compliant should be powerful marketting material in 10-15 years.

    I think an "epoch_t" makes a great deal of sense.


    Erik B. Andersen Web:
    --This message was written using 73% post-consumer electrons--

    To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
    the body of a message to
    Please read the FAQ at

     \ /
      Last update: 2005-03-22 13:55    [W:0.021 / U:3.096 seconds]
    ©2003-2016 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site