(no subject)

posted by [identity profile] imc.livejournal.com at 08:33am on 03/08/2006
Anyone who uses a timeout value of 32 years deserves what they get, I tend to feel. If they'd used 1E10 instead, they'd have discovered the bug much sooner. :-)

If you're going to change the type of time_t, you need something that is a plug-in replacement for "long" (so people can do arithmetic on it) and isn't a gcc extension (other compilers exist for Linux). I gather that "long long" is part of the C99 standard (are all compilers expected to support it yet?). You probably also want to change the kernel's time_t at the same time, which may be non-trivial to arrange.
[parent entry] [link] [parent] [reply]
ext_8103: (Default)

(no subject)

posted by [identity profile] ewx.livejournal.com at 08:50am on 03/08/2006

32 year timeouts are a little silly for a web server but 32-year intervals might be rather short for applications involving, say, human lifetimes.



If anyone's really still using an obsolete compiler which doesn't have 64-bit integral types then they're already missing a whole bunch of stuff from Glibc. Still, it would not be impossible to arrange for those compilers to get the old 32-bit interface.



The kernel can add a 64-bit time type whenever it likes and does not have to be coupled to the library at all; they can happen in either order, though it's only really useful once the library has it.


[link] [parent] [reply]

May

SunMonTueWedThuFriSat
        1
 
 2
 
 3
 
4
 
 5
 
 6
 
 7
 
 8
 
 9
 
 10
 
11
 
 12
 
 13
 
 14
 
 15
 
 16
 
 17
 
18
 
 19
 
 20
 
 21
 
 22
 
 23
 
 24
 
25
 
 26
 
 27
 
 28
 
 29
1
 30
 
 31