Re: time(1) incorrect (Re) ... times(3) strange; clock_t == long

Erik Troan (ewt@redhat.com)
Thu, 29 Feb 1996 10:42:21 -0500 (EST)


On Thu, 29 Feb 1996 froy@gr.osf.org wrote:

> I have also a question on clock_t: it's a `long' on BLADE_0.3 (<asm/types.h>)
> but an `int' on Digital Unix (<sys/types.h>). While perhaps sometimes
> hidden by the Alpha chip tolerant endianess, it should make a (small) hole in
> binary compatibility of Linux/Alpha with Digital Unix. I'd like to
> understand the advantage of preferring `long' to `int': is it because
> Linux/Intel's clock_t is also `long' ?

That's easy - we don't want our time to run out in 2020 (or whenever 32 bit
time runs out, which isn't so far in the future I can't grasp it). Now 64
bit time -- that'll last about 100 billion more years. That's more time then
I can easily comprehend, and I don't care a whit about what happens to the
world when it runs out (as the sun would have exploded about 95 billion
years earlier, give or take).

I don't think Linux will last quite that long.

Erik

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Always hoped that I'd be an apostle. Knew that I would make it if I tried.
Then when we retire we can write the gospels so they'll all talk about
us when we die. - "The Last Supper" from Jesus Christ Superstar
| Erik Troan = http://sunsite.unc.edu/ewt/ = ewt@sunsite.unc.edu |