Messages in this thread | | | Date | Wed, 12 Jan 2000 10:11:49 +1030 | From | Glen Turner <> | Subject | Re: 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/
| |