lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2000]   [Jan]   [12]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: time_t size: The year 2038 bug Summary:
Erik Andersen wrote:
>
> On Tue Jan 11, 2000 at 05:51:34AM -0800, John Alvord wrote:
> > On Mon, 10 Jan 2000, David Schwartz wrote:
> >
> > Rather then change the meaning of time_t, why not define an new value of
> > epoch_t which is currently zero. That way software can be converted
> > gradually and old software will continue to work unchanged. The
> > infrastructure will use the epoch_t value to do things the right way.
> > Given the recent Y2K scare, getting a label that says your software is
> > 2038 compliant should be powerful marketting material in 10-15 years.
> >
>
> I think an "epoch_t" makes a great deal of sense.

Until you write it to file or send it across a network
and it is used by a machine with a different value of
epoch_t.

People will have to alter code to write both time_t and
epoch_t to files with persistence or in network protocols.

I can't see that this is superior to changing the base
type of time_t during a future move to ISO C9x.

Regards,
glen

--
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/

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2005-03-22 13:55    [W:0.077 / U:0.204 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site