[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20110831205439.1a0c94da@lxorguk.ukuu.org.uk>
Date: Wed, 31 Aug 2011 20:54:39 +0100
From: Alan Cox <alan@...rguk.ukuu.org.uk>
To: "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>
Cc: Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>,
Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
Christoph Hellwig <hch@...radead.org>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
"H.J. Lu" <hjl.tools@...il.com>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
Richard Kuo <rkuo@...eaurora.org>,
Mark Salter <msalter@...hat.com>,
Jonas Bonn <jonas@...thpole.se>,
Tobias Klauser <tklauser@...tanz.ch>
Subject: Re: RFD: x32 ABI system call numbers
On Wed, 31 Aug 2011 12:44:04 -0700
"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com> wrote:
> On 08/31/2011 12:18 PM, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
> >>
> >> You do realize that there are probably quite a lot of programs that
> >> depend on signed time_t because they really do care about dates before
> >> 1970?
> >
> > Yes, it already occurred to me after I had written the above that we
> > really want it to be signed, especially to allow a meaningful conversion
> > at least one-way between 32 and 64 bit time_t values.
> >
>
> The only reason I mentioned redefining 32-bit time_t as unsigned was for
> *legacy ABIs*.
But if you redefine it then it's not a legacy ABI any more - its a new
ABI. Might as well just cause the pain. 64bit has already done much of
the cleaning up.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists