This is the mail archive of the mailing list for the glibc project.

Index Nav: [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav: [Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]
Other format: [Raw text]

Re: Is Y2038-proofing in a glibc roadmap somewhere?

On Mon, 3 Aug 2015, Paul Eggert wrote:

> Joseph Myers wrote:
> > The evidence is that libraries affected by the _FILE_OFFSET_BITS value are
> > more likely nowadays to be built with _FILE_OFFSET_BITS=64 than
> > _FILE_OFFSET_BITS=32 on GNU/Linux distributions.
> Even at the time _FILE_OFFSET_BITS was introduced, I thought that it was a
> mistake for it to default to 32.  An understandable mistake, but a mistake
> nonetheless.  What a hassle it was to arrange for every application to #define
> Can we avoid the mistake this time around, and have _TIME_BITS default to 64?

I think that's a recipe for the addition of _TIME_BITS=64 support not 
happening at all or being delayed by several years; changing the default 
is a lot trickier than adding new interfaces, and requires significant 
distribution work to coordinate ABI changes for shared libraries.

Work towards changing the _FILE_OFFSET_BITS default - such as obtaining 
and implementing a consensus on whether to deprecate the fts interface or 
add a 64-bit version of it, and fixing (maybe bit-by-bit rather than all 
at once) bug 14106 - would be welcome, and a prerequisite for being able 
to change the _TIME_BITS default.

Joseph S. Myers

Index Nav: [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav: [Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]