Messages in this thread |  | | | Date | Thu, 06 Jan 2000 13:30:32 +1030 | | From | Glen Turner <> | | Subject | Re: 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.
doug@springer.net 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 glen.turner@aarnet.edu.au http://www.aarnet.edu.au/ -- 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 majordomo@vger.rutgers.edu Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
|  |