nanog mailing list archives

Re: Silly season


From: "Alex P. Rudnev" <alex () virgin relcom eu net>
Date: Thu, 23 Dec 1999 11:47:31 +0300 (MSK)


Cc: nanog () merit edu
Subject: Re: Silly season


On Wed, Dec 22, 1999 at 01:55:17PM -0900, Aaron Dewell wrote:

Or February 6, 2106 at 6:28:14 if your UNIX system keeps an unsigned 32-bit
time_t.  I Y2.038k tested my Solaris 7 box, it kept time past 3:14 AM 1/19/38,
Folks, time_t is _SIGNET LONG_, not unsigned one. And y2.038k is really a
problem, and can touch some real-time systems (Y2K can not, except some
absolutelky crazy ones).

but the date command would not set it.  Which implies that the kernel itself is
unsigned, while the date command uses a signed number.

Wasting an entire 2 billion seconds to check for a -1 error condition
instead of the one's complement 0xFFFFFFFF is remarkably stupid imho. But
it would break a lot of userland programs to change. As far as I know in
BSD it is still a signed long, at least in machine/ansi.h.

-- 
Richard A. Steenbergen <ras () above net>  http://users.quadrunner.com/humble
PGP Key ID: 0x60AB0AD1  (E5 35 10 1D DE 7D 8C A7  09 1C 80 8B AF B9 77 BB)
AboveNet Communications - AboveSecure Network Security Engineer, Vienna VA
"A mind is like a parachute, it works best when open."   -- Unknown



Aleksei Roudnev,
(+1 415) 585-3489 /San Francisco CA/




Current thread: