[26309] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: Silly season
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Richard Steenbergen)
Wed Dec 22 19:02:41 1999
Date: Wed, 22 Dec 1999 19:00:48 -0500
From: Richard Steenbergen <ras@above.net>
To: Aaron Dewell <acd@woods.net>
Cc: nanog@merit.edu
Message-ID: <19991222190048.L26711@above.net>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
In-Reply-To: <v04011702b48706a538a5@[209.112.190.212]>; from Aaron Dewell on Wed, Dec 22, 1999 at 01:55:17PM -0900
Errors-To: owner-nanog-outgoing@merit.edu
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,
> 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
