* 64-bit time_t?
@ 2009-09-17 11:26 Eric Blake
2009-09-17 15:30 ` Christopher Faylor
0 siblings, 1 reply; 3+ messages in thread
From: Eric Blake @ 2009-09-17 11:26 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: cygwin
-----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
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 3+ messages in thread
* Re: 64-bit time_t?
2009-09-17 11:26 64-bit time_t? Eric Blake
@ 2009-09-17 15:30 ` Christopher Faylor
2009-09-21 19:30 ` Christopher Faylor
0 siblings, 1 reply; 3+ messages in thread
From: Christopher Faylor @ 2009-09-17 15:30 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: cygwin
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
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 3+ messages in thread
* Re: 64-bit time_t?
2009-09-17 15:30 ` Christopher Faylor
@ 2009-09-21 19:30 ` Christopher Faylor
0 siblings, 0 replies; 3+ messages in thread
From: Christopher Faylor @ 2009-09-21 19:30 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: cygwin
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
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 3+ messages in thread
end of thread, other threads:[~2009-09-21 19:30 UTC | newest]
Thread overview: 3+ messages (download: mbox.gz / follow: Atom feed)
-- links below jump to the message on this page --
2009-09-17 11:26 64-bit time_t? Eric Blake
2009-09-17 15:30 ` Christopher Faylor
2009-09-21 19:30 ` Christopher Faylor
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for read-only IMAP folder(s) and NNTP newsgroup(s).