[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: Summary of the 2038 BoF at DC17

On Sat, 2017-09-02 at 04:04 +0200, Adam Borowski wrote:
> On Sat, Sep 02, 2017 at 12:58:54AM +0100, Steve McIntyre wrote:
> > What's the problem?
> > -------------------
> > 
> > UNIX time_t is 31 bits (signed), counting seconds since Jan 1,
> > 1970. It's going to wrap.. It's used *everywhere* in UNIX-based
> > systems. Imagine the effects of Y2K, but worse.
> > Glibc is the next obvious piece of the puzzle - almost everything
> > depends on it. Planning is ongoing at
> > 
> >   https://sourceware.org/glibc/wiki/Y2038ProofnessDesign
> > 
> > to provide 64-bit time_t support without breaking the existing 32-bit
> > code.
> I find it strange that you don't mention x32 anywhere.  Dealing with
> assumptions that time_t = long was the majority of work with this port; a
> lot of software still either did not apply submitted patches or accepted
> only dumb casts to (long) instead of a proper y2038-proof solution.

AFAIK, various compat ioctl implementations assume 32-bit time_t and so
don't work properly for x32.  The work being done to add 64-bit time
support for older 32-bit architectures will work for both i386 and x32.
So x32 doesn't solve any problems.


Ben Hutchings
Life is what happens to you while you're busy making other plans.
                                                          - John Lennon

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part

Reply to: