[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:0.166 / U:7.204 seconds]
©2003-2018 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site