Re: Recent glibc time_t redefinition?
On Mon, Feb 03, 2003 at 12:13:28PM +1000, Andrew Pollock wrote:
> I'm assuming it was deliberate also, to address the 2038 bug. I've seen
> much talk of it back in 2000 in Google, but nothing more recent.
Hmm, do I understand correctly that we've introduced a 1970 bug in
order to move the 2038 bug to 2106?
A far better strategy would be to start implementing RFC 2550
("Y10K and Beyond") as soon as possible. Then we'd be permanently
rid of these problems.
Richard Braakman
Reply to: