On 2017-07-14, Jigme Datse Yli-RAsku <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> On 2017-07-14 08:15, Andrew Tselischev wrote:
>> On Fri, Jul 14, 2017 at 08:42:01PM +0700, Vadim A. Misbakh-Soloviov wrote:
>> >> when time_t reaches 2 billion.
>> >
>> > He meant 2k38 problem, when time_t will overflow int32 :)
>>
>> I would bet that somewhere there is a quick-job shell script that parses
>> unix timestamps with regular expressions and assumes they start with a 1. :D
>>
> Why do I feel that we've already gone through at least one upgrade
> of "Unix Time" already. I'm not sure if it was something like going
> from int16 to int32, or more that it went from signed int32 to
> unsigned int32.
Well, the return type for time() changed from "int" (or was it long?)
to "time_t" many years back. That said, the actual underlying
representation has never changed on 32-bit Linux systems. Posix
requires it to be signed, and on 32-bit Linux systems, it's still
going to overflow in 2038 -- same as it ever was.
NetBSD and OpenBSD both changed to signed-64 on both 32-bit and 64-bit
archetectures. Maybe that's what you're thinking of?
--
Grant Edwards grant.b.edwards Yow! Here I am in the
at POSTERIOR OLFACTORY LOBULE
gmail.com but I don't see CARL SAGAN
anywhere!!
