Re: 32 bit time_t

Yo Achim! On Thu, 20 Apr 2017 12:27:11 +0200 Achim Gratz wrote: > Quote from the document linked previously: Interesting, but until Linus accepts it, of no practical use to ntpd. RGDS GARY --- Gary E.

Re: 32 bit time_t

Yo Eric! On Thu, 20 Apr 2017 03:50:29 -0400 "Eric S. Raymond" wrote: > Achim Gratz : > > Am 19.04.2017 um 20:38 schrieb Gary E. Miller: > > >Gentoo stable on RasPi has 32 bit time_t: > > > > > >Checking sizeof long

Re: 32 bit time_t

Yo Achim! On Thu, 20 Apr 2017 09:11:37 +0200 Achim Gratz wrote: > Am 19.04.2017 um 20:38 schrieb Gary E. Miller: > > Gentoo stable on RasPi has 32 bit time_t: > > > > Checking sizeof long: 4 > > Checking sizeof time_t (time.h)

Re: 32 bit time_t

strom...@nexgo.de said: > The following is proposed: > User code defines _TIME_BITS=64 to get 64-bit time support instead of > the legacy 32-bit time. > If glibc sees _TIME_BITS=64, then it defines __USE_TIME_BITS64 to > indicate that time support is 64-bit rather than 32-bit. That

Re: 32 bit time_t

This is a 32bit glibc based system, so this means you didn't ask for a 64bit time_t, then. Here's that link again that tells you how glibc handles this: https://sourceware.org/glibc/wiki/Y2038ProofnessDesign The Linux kernel itself is not Y2038 clean yet, AFAIK. But that's no excuse for

Re: 32 bit time_t

Achim Gratz : > Am 19.04.2017 um 20:38 schrieb Gary E. Miller: > >Gentoo stable on RasPi has 32 bit time_t: > > > >Checking sizeof long: 4 > >Checking sizeof time_t (time.h) : 4 > > This is a 32bit

Re: 32 bit time_t

Am 19.04.2017 um 20:38 schrieb Gary E. Miller: Gentoo stable on RasPi has 32 bit time_t: Checking sizeof long: 4 Checking sizeof time_t (time.h) : 4 This is a 32bit glibc based system, so this means you didn't ask for

Re: 32 bit time_t warnings

Yo Hal! On Wed, 19 Apr 2017 14:57:00 -0700 Hal Murray wrote: > We need to be sure they get to a place where people will see them. Yes, this is just to see how bad the problem is. We know people just ignore all the warnings they see. I'm afraid if we warn to lowdly,

Re: 32 bit time_t

Yo All! Uh, oh. My boo-boo. I got this wrong. Gentoo stable on RasPi has 32 bit time_t: Checking sizeof long: 4 Checking sizeof time_t (time.h) : 4 WARNING: This system has a 32-bit time_t. WARNING: Your ntpd will

Re: 32 bit time_t

Gary E. Miller : > Yeah, should be in waf. Trust, but verify. > > New issue: > > https://gitlab.com/NTPsec/ntpsec/issues/272 Working it now. -- http://www.catb.org/~esr/;>Eric S. Raymond Please consider contributing to my Patreon page at

Re: 32 bit time_t

Yo Eric! > The integral part of timespec is time_t which has been 64-bit *even > on 32-bit Linuxes* for, what is it, close to 20 years now? 13 May 2014, here is the patch set: https://lwn.net/Articles/598408/ "This patchset change default time_t and clock_t to 64 bit in

Re: 32 bit time_t

Yo Hal! On Tue, 18 Apr 2017 14:54:07 -0700 Hal Murray wrote: > g...@rellim.com said: > > FreeBSD 8 defines time_t as int32_t. > > 8 is really old. Where did you find one of those? I googled for 32 bit time_t. > 11 is current. 10.3 is still supported. There is a

Re: 32 bit time_t

Hal Murray : > > g...@rellim.com said: > >> Is there any reason not to put it in now as a warning? > > if (4 >=3D sizeof(time_t)) puts("WARNING your system will fail in 2038."); > > I was thinking of a build time warning. Your run time suggestion seems good > too. >

Re: 32 bit time_t

g...@rellim.com said: >> Is there any reason not to put it in now as a warning? > if (4 >=3D sizeof(time_t)) puts("WARNING your system will fail in 2038."); I was thinking of a build time warning. Your run time suggestion seems good too. I think we need a better text. Maybe a URL for a page

Re: 32 bit time_t

Hal Murray : > > > The integral part of timespec is time_t which has been 64-bit *even on > > 32-bit Linuxes* for, what is it, close to 20 years now? > > Are you sure? > > It's only 32 bits on Raspberry Pi and Fedora i386 and Debian ppc Well that's weird. I thought I

Re: 32 bit time_t

Yo Hal! On Tue, 18 Apr 2017 14:34:55 -0700 Hal Murray wrote: > Is there any reason not to put it in now as a warning? Good idea: if (4 >= sizeof(time_t)) puts("WARNING your system will fail in 2038."); RGDS GARY