This is the mail archive of the
mailing list for the glibc project.
Re: Second draft of the Y2038 design document
- From: Arnd Bergmann <arnd at arndb dot de>
- To: libc-alpha at sourceware dot org
- Cc: Paul Eggert <eggert at cs dot ucla dot edu>, Albert ARIBAUD <albert dot aribaud at 3adev dot fr>
- Date: Fri, 29 Jan 2016 09:58:16 +0100
- Subject: Re: Second draft of the Y2038 design document
- Authentication-results: sourceware.org; auth=none
- References: <20160128204114 dot 6c7dbbf7 dot albert dot aribaud at 3adev dot fr> <1683528 dot yWvM1WbPg0 at wuerfel> <56AAAE6E dot 3040607 at cs dot ucla dot edu>
On Thursday 28 January 2016 16:12:30 Paul Eggert wrote:
> On 01/28/2016 03:21 PM, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
> >> Why are struct rusage, getrusage, etc. Y2038-sensitive? They hold
> >> >intervals, not absolute times.
> > It can theoretically still overflow, though not at the same time:
> In that case, I don't understand why nanosleep, setitimer, adjtime,
> pselect, etc. are not marked as Y2038-sensitive, as they can all
> overflow a 32-bit time_t in the same way that getrusage can.
Agreed. As Joseph said earlier, it does not really matter whether
the interface is problematic by itself. If anything uses a time_t,
it has to be changed along with everything else based on the
definition of that type.