Re: time_t size: The year 2038 bug? - another reason

From: Peter Svensson (petersv@psv.nu)
Date: Fri Jan 07 2000 - 07:12:56 EST


On Fri, 7 Jan 2000, Alan Cox wrote:

> Changing time_t on existing systems is a huge task that isnt going to happen until it needs
> too. For desktop machines the world will have moved on. Embedded boxes might need a
> recompile. Fortunately with open source your vendor can't screw you by going bust or
> charging you $1m for any updates

There is one reason for perhaps thinking about it already. Even though the
same code base may not be in use by 2038, we already handle times well
past 2038. Currently, everytime you have to deal with times a bit into the
future you have to use your own time handling and conversion routines.
This is really no biggie, except for the fact that time conversion
routines seem to be prone to errors. Having them written once in the
standard libs may alleviate that.

Peter

--
Peter Svensson      ! Pgp key available by finger, fingerprint:
<petersv@psv.nu>    ! 8A E9 20 98 C1 FF 43 E3  07 FD B9 0A 80 72 70 AF
<petersv@df.lth.se> !
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Remember, Luke, your source will be with you... always...

- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.rutgers.edu Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/



This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Fri Jan 07 2000 - 21:00:09 EST