On Tue, Jul 12, 2016 at 08:41:42AM -0700, Junio C Hamano wrote: > Jeff King <peff@xxxxxxxx> writes: > > > I am not certain that there is a modern system with 32-bit time_t. We > > know there are systems with 32-bit unsigned long, and I think that is > > what produced the results people saw. I'd expect even 32-bit systems to > > use "int64_t" or similar for their time_t these days. > > OK. In case it wasn't clear, I was mostly guessing there. So I dug a bit further, and indeed, I am wrong. Linux never bumped to a 64-bit time_t on i386 because of the ABI headaches. That being said, I still think the "clamp to time_t" strategy is reasonable. Unless you are doing something really exotic like pretending to be from the future, nobody will care for 20 years. And at that point, systems with a 32-bit time_t are going to have to do _something_, because time() is going to start returning bogus values. So as long as we behave reasonably (e.g., clamping values and not generating wrapped nonsense), I think that's a fine solution. -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