X-Recipient: archive-cygwin AT delorie DOT com X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Date: Mon, 21 Sep 2009 15:29:51 -0400 From: Christopher Faylor To: cygwin AT cygwin DOT com Subject: Re: 64-bit time_t? Message-ID: <20090921192951.GC16701@ednor.casa.cgf.cx> Reply-To: cygwin AT cygwin DOT com Mail-Followup-To: cygwin AT cygwin DOT com References: <4AB21CCC DOT 8030205 AT byu DOT net> <20090917153037 DOT GB14618 AT ednor DOT casa DOT cgf DOT cx> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20090917153037.GB14618@ednor.casa.cgf.cx> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.20 (2009-06-14) Mailing-List: contact cygwin-help AT cygwin DOT com; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: cygwin-owner AT cygwin DOT com Mail-Followup-To: cygwin AT cygwin DOT com Delivered-To: mailing list cygwin AT cygwin DOT 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