Messages in this thread | | | Date | Wed, 31 Aug 2011 20:54:39 +0100 | From | Alan Cox <> | Subject | Re: RFD: x32 ABI system call numbers |
| |
On Wed, 31 Aug 2011 12:44:04 -0700 "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@zytor.com> wrote:
> On 08/31/2011 12:18 PM, Arnd Bergmann wrote: > >> > >> You do realize that there are probably quite a lot of programs that > >> depend on signed time_t because they really do care about dates before > >> 1970? > > > > Yes, it already occurred to me after I had written the above that we > > really want it to be signed, especially to allow a meaningful conversion > > at least one-way between 32 and 64 bit time_t values. > > > > The only reason I mentioned redefining 32-bit time_t as unsigned was for > *legacy ABIs*.
But if you redefine it then it's not a legacy ABI any more - its a new ABI. Might as well just cause the pain. 64bit has already done much of the cleaning up.
| |