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

Re: Summary of the 2038 BoF at DC17

In article <[🔎] 10e4fa4a-433c-a43b-1136-984293497c50@p10link.net> you write:
>> Firstly: developers trying to be *too* clever are likely to only make
>> things worse - don't do it! Whatever you do in your code, don't bodge
>> around the 32-bit time_t problem. *Don't* store time values in weird
>> formats, and don't assume things about it to "avoid" porting
>> problems. These are all going to cause pain in the future as we try to
>> fix problems.
>> For the time being in your code, *use* time_t and expect an ABI break
>> down the road. This is the best plan *for now*.
>I find this argument unconvincing.
>If a library is new or is going to have an ABI break anyway then by
>moving to 64-bit time in it's interfaces now it can avoid another ABI
>break down the road.

It depends on how/where/why you're embedding 64-bit time,
basically. If you're embedding a time_t (or a struct including a
time_t) in your ABI and want to keep to something similar, it's worth
waiting to see what's going to be standardised then using that. If you
don't care and want to go your own way, then fine - but you might end
up having to do conversions to/from the new standard stuff. But
(please $deity!) avoid the temptation to do something "clever" like
using a double or similar to store large values where precision

>Similarly if someone is introducing a new version of a file format
>anyway moving to 64-bit time at the same time as making other changes
>avoids breaking things twice.

Now in this case, *definitely* it's worth doing it right now - as
suggested in the session. On-disk formats are always going to be
specific and you can invent your own solution however you like.

Steve McIntyre, Cambridge, UK.                                steve@einval.com
< sladen> I actually stayed in a hotel and arrived to find a post-it
          note stuck to the mini-bar saying "Paul: This fridge and
          fittings are the correct way around and do not need altering"

Reply to: