On Wed, 30 Sep 1998, Stephen J. Carpenter wrote:
On Wed, Sep 30, 1998 at 11:01:22AM -0400, Michael Stone wrote:
I agree...but...they still could be. Isn't that exactly what the people who
were writting mainframe applications a few yars ago said? :)
Nah this system wont be in use past 93
:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Sunday, September 27, 1998 11:40 PM
To: Miquel van Smoorenburg
Cc: debian-user@lists.debian.org
Subject: Re: Y2K+38 disaster in debian?
On 27 Sep 1998, Miquel van Smoorenburg wrote:
In article [EMAIL PROTECTED],
Wojciech Zabolotny [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hi
Quoting Philip Thiem ([EMAIL PROTECTED]):
Why would 32-bit apps be limited to 32 bit integers?? Didn't we have 32
bit avallible to us on the 286?? If not, I'm certain we were able to
get around it then. Also if any one wants to make use of MMX registers
there is even a 64-bit ASM MOV
On Wed, Sep 30, 1998 at 11:01:22AM -0400, Michael Stone wrote:
Quoting Philip Thiem ([EMAIL PROTECTED]):
Why would 32-bit apps be limited to 32 bit integers?? Didn't we have 32
bit avallible to us on the 286?? If not, I'm certain we were able to
get around it then. Also if any one wants
Quoting Stephen J. Carpenter ([EMAIL PROTECTED]):
On Wed, Sep 30, 1998 at 11:01:22AM -0400, Michael Stone wrote:
2) 64 bit math is _very_ slow on a 32 bit machine. Since time_t is used
all over the place (e.g., the filesystem) you'd seriously slow things
down by making it 64 bits.
Well
On Wed, 30 Sep 1998, Michael Stone wrote:
[ snip ]
: If you're using a pentium-class machine in 2038, you deserve what you
: get. I can't believe it would be operative after that long.
I know people still sing PDP-11s -today- ! Who would have thought
they'd still be around? Their cost of
: The recipient's address is unknown.
Subject:Re: Y2K+38 disaster in debian?
Quoting Stephen J. Carpenter ([EMAIL PROTECTED]):
On Wed, Sep 30, 1998 at 11:01:22AM -0400, Michael Stone wrote:
2) 64 bit math is _very_ slow on a 32 bit machine. Since time_t is used
all over the place (e.g
On 27 Sep 1998, Miquel van Smoorenburg wrote:
In article [EMAIL PROTECTED],
Wojciech Zabolotny [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hi
There was a lot of noise about the y2k problem in old COBOL and M$
applications, but what about the Y2K+38 disaster in the POSIX world?
I was pretty sure that the new libc6
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Miquel van Smoorenburg) writes:
It's a kernel issue. On 32 bit platforms time_t will probably always be
restricted to 32 bits, but on 64 bits systems such as the alpha time_t
is 64 bits .. and by 2038 I expect everyone to be running at least
a 64 bit machine.
BZZT, wrong
-Original Message-
From: dsb3 [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Sunday, September 27, 1998 11:40 PM
To: Miquel van Smoorenburg
Cc: debian-user@lists.debian.org
Subject: Re: Y2K+38 disaster in debian?
On 27 Sep 1998, Miquel van Smoorenburg wrote:
In article [EMAIL PROTECTED],
Wojciech
Hi
There was a lot of noise about the y2k problem in old COBOL and M$
applications, but what about the Y2K+38 disaster in the POSIX world?
I was pretty sure that the new libc6 library implements 64 bit time_t,
but just yesterday, during the testing of my new application I've stated,
that when I
On Sun, Sep 27, 1998 at 02:55:08PM +0200, Wojciech Zabolotny wrote:
Hi
There was a lot of noise about the y2k problem in old COBOL and M$
applications, but what about the Y2K+38 disaster in the POSIX world?
I was pretty sure that the new libc6 library implements 64 bit time_t,
but just
In article [EMAIL PROTECTED],
Wojciech Zabolotny [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hi
There was a lot of noise about the y2k problem in old COBOL and M$
applications, but what about the Y2K+38 disaster in the POSIX world?
I was pretty sure that the new libc6 library implements 64 bit time_t,
It's a kernel
13 matches
Mail list logo
