[lkml]   [2000]   [Jan]   [13]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectRe: time_t size: The year 2038 bug?
On Tue, 11 Jan 2000, Horst von Brand wrote:
> Jesse Pollard <> said:
> [...]
> > yes it is. but the number of bits is not. On a 32 bit system "long long" is
> > 64 bits. On a 64bit system it is 128. And if you need more bits that
> > that you are out of luck. "long long" is imprecise, I'd prefer a construct
> > like "int var: 64". This way I know exactly how many bits are available.
> > If I need 128 bits for something (or even 4096) then I can define them. Or
> > is there going to be a "long long long long" for 128 bits, and "long long
> > long long long long .... long" to reach 4096?
> COBOL gives you this (sort of) >:-}

I was just thinking last night that this is one advantage that Multics
had, being written in PL/I:

%DCL time_t char;
%time_t = 'FIXED BINARY(64)';
DCL foo time_t;
DCL bar AUTO time_t;

(or however it is you'd do typedefs in the PL/I preprocessor -- it's been
too long....)

Mark H. Wood, Lead System Programmer mwood@IUPUI.Edu
"Where's the kaboom? There was supposed to be an Earth-shattering kaboom!"
-- Marvin Martian, 01/01/2000 00:00:00

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:0.043 / U:39.280 seconds]
©2003-2018 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site