On Tue, Jul 12, 2016 at 12:56:11AM +0000, Eric Wong wrote: > Jeff King <peff@xxxxxxxx> wrote: > > Otherwise, we'll have to skip the test, perhaps with something like the > > patch below. I suspect the problem is actually the size of "unsigned > > long", not time_t, as we use that internally for a bunch of time > > computation. > > We should probably be using int64_t for time calculations; > "unsigned long" is 32-bits on 32-bit x86 systems. I'd agree (or probably just "time_t", which I would hope would be a future-proof length even on 32-bit systems). It's just that it's baked into a lot of different function interfaces and structs in the code, and nobody has taken the time to review and change it all (since it doesn't actually affect current timestamps and won't for a while). -Peff -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe git" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html