Re: 64-bit time_t?

[Christopher Faylor <cgf-use-the-mailinglist-please@cygwin.com>]

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