64-bit time_t?

64-bit time_t?

[Eric Blake]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

Is the transition to 1.7 a good time to change the ABI and offer a 64-bit
time_t type that won't overflow in 2038?  Would we have to do the same
sort of transition magic as was done back in 1.5 for 32-bit vs. 64-bit off_t?

- --
Don't work too hard, make some time for fun as well!

Eric Blake             ebb9@byu.net
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (Cygwin)
Comment: Public key at home.comcast.net/~ericblake/eblake.gpg
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/

iEYEARECAAYFAkqyHMsACgkQ84KuGfSFAYDWGwCfeNEhefLmrz9u+0A135ZLbLzO
LacAn3BUdTXa8I8RwxHCSZKyK1JQweCS
=QhZR
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

--
Problem reports:       http://cygwin.com/problems.html
FAQ:                   http://cygwin.com/faq/
Documentation:         http://cygwin.com/docs.html
Unsubscribe info:      http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple

Re: 64-bit time_t?

[Christopher Faylor]

On Thu, Sep 17, 2009 at 05:26:04AM -0600, Eric Blake wrote:
>Is the transition to 1.7 a good time to change the ABI and offer a 64-bit
>time_t type that won't overflow in 2038?  Would we have to do the same
>sort of transition magic as was done back in 1.5 for 32-bit vs. 64-bit off_t?

Argh.  I was *just* thinking about this yesterday.

I think the answer is yes.  We can probably do some header file magic to
allow backwards contemptibility, too.

I hate making a last minute change like this now but it really is the best
time to get this done I think.  I'll take a look at how hard it would be to
do this over the weekend.

Thanks for bringing this up, Eric.

cgf

--
Problem reports:       http://cygwin.com/problems.html
FAQ:                   http://cygwin.com/faq/
Documentation:         http://cygwin.com/docs.html
Unsubscribe info:      http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple

Re: 64-bit time_t?

[Christopher Faylor]

On Thu, Sep 17, 2009 at 11:30:37AM -0400, Christopher Faylor wrote:
>On Thu, Sep 17, 2009 at 05:26:04AM -0600, Eric Blake wrote:
>>Is the transition to 1.7 a good time to change the ABI and offer a 64-bit
>>time_t type that won't overflow in 2038?  Would we have to do the same
>>sort of transition magic as was done back in 1.5 for 32-bit vs. 64-bit off_t?
>
>Argh.  I was *just* thinking about this yesterday.
>
>I think the answer is yes.  We can probably do some header file magic to
>allow backwards contemptibility, too.
>
>I hate making a last minute change like this now but it really is the best
>time to get this done I think.  I'll take a look at how hard it would be to
>do this over the weekend.
>
>Thanks for bringing this up, Eric.

On second thought, I don't think we want to destabilize the release at this
point.  I guess this is one for Cygwin 1.9.

cgf

--
Problem reports:       http://cygwin.com/problems.html
FAQ:                   http://cygwin.com/faq/
Documentation:         http://cygwin.com/docs.html
Unsubscribe info:      http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple