lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2000]   [Jan]   [5]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [more markup]  [less markup]  [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
From"James Willard" <>
SubjectRe: time_t size: The year 2038 bug?
DateWed, 5 Jan 2000 15:53:50 -0500
----- Original Message -----
From: Richard B. Johnson <root@chaos.analogic.com>
To: <doug@springer.net>
Cc: <linux-kernel@vger.rutgers.edu>
Sent: Wednesday, January 05, 2000 3:32 PM
Subject: Re: time_t size: The year 2038 bug?

> On Wed, 5 Jan 2000 doug@springer.net wrote:
>
> > I have tentatively searched the linux kernel archives for this subject,
> > but haven't found anything.  I have heard that there is talk about
> > moving this to 64 bits.  Has anyone considered this (stupid
> > question) and who else is interested in this subject.  It seems to be
> > a kernel and a glibc issue.  Since I am not currently subscribed to
> > the list, please cc doug@springer.net for any replies.  When time
> > allows, I intend to experiment with the 64 bit thing and see what
> > breaks.
> > -Doug Springer
> >

[snip]

> I think that before 38 years is up, none of us will be using 32-bit
> machines so, even if I was 10 years old, I wouldn't bother 'fixing'
> 32-bit machines. Even Intel's new stuff is 64 bits.

Just on a side note, isn't that what they said about two digit dates back in
the 70's? ;)

James



-
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/

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2005-03-22 13:55    [from the cache]
©2003-2008