Beefy Boxes and Bandwidth Generously Provided by pair Networks
Clear questions and runnable code
get the best and fastest answer
 
PerlMonks  

Re: 1111111111

by Fletch (Bishop)
on Mar 18, 2005 at 03:14 UTC ( [id://440615]=note: print w/replies, xml ) Need Help??


in reply to 1111111111

It overflows a 32-bit time_t value then, but so long as you move to a 64-bit value (as many of the major *NIXen have started doing, I believe; similar to offset_t growing for large file support) everything will continue to work just fine.</pedant>

It's the people running embedded systems (or emulators) that're in for trouble . . .

Replies are listed 'Best First'.
Re^2: 1111111111
by Anonymous Monk on Mar 18, 2005 at 11:02 UTC
    <rant>
    If switching to a 64-bit value for time_t meant that "everything will continue to work just fine", 32 bit time_ts would have been something of the past already.

    There's a lot more to it than that. First, it's a matter of synchronization. Compiling a piece of software that uses 64 bit time_t and linking that (either at compile, or run time) against a library that expects 32 bit timestamps is unlikely to work correctly. Another synchronization problem happens in client/server applications. If one side starts thinking that timestamps are 8 bytes instead of 4, you have a problem. Second problem is data. 32 bit time_t date written to a database, or serialized takes 4 bytes. But if you switch to 64 bit timestamps, you can't assume your data has suddenly changed.

    Now, switching to a different time_t size doesn't have to be a problem. If everyone is aware of the potential problems and takes them into account, no major problems will arrise. In fact, problems will only arrise if people are naive enough to think that "moving to a 64-bit value will make everything to continue to just work fine". It may be telling that some vendors use time64_t instead of changing the type of time_t.

    Interesting is also this Long Time Type proposal.
    </rant>

      The answer is simply my friend. Although it could be a bit of work in some cases, its mostly considered a minor/non-issue today. Developers always have to worry about bigger problems or features to add. The closer we get, the bigger the priority this will become. Heck, we got @ 33 years to plan.

Re^2: 1111111111
by ww (Archbishop) on Mar 18, 2005 at 17:38 UTC
    ah shucks... I was just about to notify the Enquirer that the universe will end in a scant 3 decades....
    and then hustle the feds for a LARGE grant to avert the catastrophe.

    And there you go spoiling it

    ;>)

Log In?
Username:
Password:

What's my password?
Create A New User
Domain Nodelet?
Node Status?
node history
Node Type: note [id://440615]
help
Chatterbox?
and the web crawler heard nothing...

How do I use this?Last hourOther CB clients
Other Users?
Others avoiding work at the Monastery: (6)
As of 2024-03-29 12:49 GMT
Sections?
Information?
Find Nodes?
Leftovers?
    Voting Booth?

    No recent polls found