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]

Re: Year 2038 problem




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]