[lkml]   [2000]   [Jan]   [6]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectRe: time_t size: The year 2038 bug?
Hannu Savolainen wrote:
> Another approach is making time_t to be 32 bit unsigned int which gives
> about 70 more years.

ANSI/ISO C defines time_t as a signed arithmetic type, so
such a change would break correct code.

Note that the use of types not listed in the standard
as the base type for time_t will also break correct code.
This includes _long _long.

Personally, I'd wait for the new ISO C's "long long" type
and use that as the base type of time_t. This would be 64
bits on a 32 bit architecture. wrote:
> Why the heck can't we just fix the issue now?

Fixing the problem now requires increasing the size of "long"
where it is currently 32 bits. This probably isn't a good idea.

Glen Turner Network Engineer
(08) 8303 3936 Australian Academic and Research Network
Earth is a single point of failure

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:0.105 / U:25.768 seconds]
©2003-2018 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site