Re: [PATCH 0/6] Use time_t

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



On Tue, Feb 28, 2017 at 10:55:49AM -0800, Junio C Hamano wrote:

> > Glibc will get a way to enable 64-bit time_t on 32-bit platforms
> > eventually
> > (https://sourceware.org/glibc/wiki/Y2038ProofnessDesign). Can
> > platforms that won't provide a 64-bit time_t by 2038 be actually used
> > at that point?  How would we get time information on them?  How would
> > a custom timestamp_t help us?
> 
> That's a sensible "wait, let's step back a bit".  I take it that you
> are saying "time_t is just fine", and I am inclined to agree.
> 
> Right now, they may be able to have future timestamps ranging to
> year 2100 and switching to time_t would limit their ability to
> express future time to 2038 but they would be able to express
> timestamp in the past to cover most of 20th century.  Given that
> these 32-bit time_t software platforms will die off before year 2038
> (either by underlying hardware getting obsolete, or software updated
> to handle 64-bit time_t), the (temporary) loss of 2038-2100 range
> would not be too big a deal to warrant additional complexity.

For what it's worth, I'm on board with just using time_t if it reduces
the overall complexity. I agree that the "loss" of far-future timestamp
handling is unlikely to matter between now and 2038, and those systems
will have to figure out their time_t problems by then. By actually using
time_t we get to piggy-back on their solution.

-Peff



[Index of Archives]     [Linux Kernel Development]     [Gcc Help]     [IETF Annouce]     [DCCP]     [Netdev]     [Networking]     [Security]     [V4L]     [Bugtraq]     [Yosemite]     [MIPS Linux]     [ARM Linux]     [Linux Security]     [Linux RAID]     [Linux SCSI]     [Fedora Users]