This is the mail archive of the newlib@sourceware.org mailing list for the newlib 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] | |
On 11/19/2015 4:20 AM, Corinna Vinschen wrote:
On Nov 19 09:15, Clemens Ladisch wrote:Corinna Vinschen wrote:On Nov 18 11:44, Clemens Ladisch wrote:changing _TIME_T_ to long long [...] Would such a simple configuration option be accepted into newlib? (Most embedded systems do not care about backwards compatibility, but newlib as a whole probably does.)ACK. And yes, a configuration option is welcome. It should still default to long for backward compat, yes. 32 bit Cygwin is still suffering 32 bit time_t as well, but changing that in a backward compatible way is quite a big task.glibc is currently talking about this: https://sourceware.org/glibc/wiki/Y2038ProofnessDesign (summary: User code defines _TIME_BITS=64 to ask that 64-bit time be the default.)For embedded targets we don't have a backward compat problem, typically so I'd prefer a simple solution. which just changes time_t to the prefered type for the target. But as I just wrote in my reply to Joel, nobody can avoid the year 2038 and at one point everybody will need a 64 bit time_t anyway.
My only technical concern is performance on 8 and 16 bit targets.
But there are a couple of realities to consider there.
(1) As you said, we can't push 2038 back. Suck it up.
(2) Is an 8/16 bit target really going to use time_t for much?
Many RTEMS systems don't even know the calendar time.
They are more focused on periodic and interval times.
I am all for pushing time_t to 64 bits for us. We are tidying up
a release branch and can move the development master to 64-bit.
We already use a native internal time format that is better than
a 32-bit time_t so it is just a matter of double checking any
conversion math.
But RTEMS is not a dictatorship. We have a good cooperative
leadership team and I would like to get feedback from others.
This is an important issue.
Corinna
--joel
| Index Nav: | [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index] | |
|---|---|---|
| Message Nav: | [Date Prev] [Date Next] | [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] |