Erik Andersen wrote:
>
> On Tue Jan 11, 2000 at 05:51:34AM -0800, John Alvord wrote:
> > On Mon, 10 Jan 2000, David Schwartz wrote:
> >
> > Rather then change the meaning of time_t, why not define an new value of
> > epoch_t which is currently zero. That way software can be converted
> > gradually and old software will continue to work unchanged. The
> > infrastructure will use the epoch_t value to do things the right way.
> > Given the recent Y2K scare, getting a label that says your software is
> > 2038 compliant should be powerful marketting material in 10-15 years.
> >
>
> I think an "epoch_t" makes a great deal of sense.
Until you write it to file or send it across a network
and it is used by a machine with a different value of
epoch_t.
People will have to alter code to write both time_t and
epoch_t to files with persistence or in network protocols.
I can't see that this is superior to changing the base
type of time_t during a future move to ISO C9x.
Regards,
glen
-- Earth is a single point of failure- 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 : Sat Jan 15 2000 - 21:00:19 EST