Re: Recent glibc time_t redefinition?
On Mon, 2003-02-03 at 13:37, Richard Braakman wrote:
> 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?
I don't think they have extended the date range; they have just chopped
off the pre-1970 half of the range. The only apparent reason is an
obsessive desire to conform exactly to the spec.
> 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.
No arguments!
--
Oliver Elphick Oliver.Elphick@lfix.co.uk
Isle of Wight, UK http://www.lfix.co.uk/oliver
GPG: 1024D/3E1D0C1C: CA12 09E0 E8D5 8870 5839 932A 614D 4C34 3E1D 0C1C
========================================
"O come, let us worship and bow down; let us kneel
before the LORD our maker." Psalms 95:6
Reply to: