[PATCH v1 0/6] TIMESTAMP output section command

[Jan Beulich]

On 07.10.2025 19:43, Ulf Samuelsson wrote:
> Den 2025-10-07 kl. 18:04, skrev Jan Beulich:
>> On 07.10.2025 17:05, Ulf Samuelsson wrote:
>>> An expression introduces the possibility of bugs. Is there anything
>>> stopping you from adding a timestamp as an 8/16/32-bit value.
>> 8 or 16 bits may not make a lot of sense for a timestamp as a whole.
>> 32 bits already may, especially when not considering this a signed value.
>> And 8 bits may make quite a bit of sense if someone wanted to decompose
>> the time stamp.
> 
> The 32 bit counters will wrap-around in 2038.
> So 32-bit timestamps does not make sense at all.

Did you miss my remark towards signed vs unsigned interpretation of 32-bit
values? Unsigned counters will have another 68 years to go afaict. Also,
what about someone wanting to conserve on space, storing e.g. only a 48-bit
value? (All such considerations fall under "general purpose" from my pov.)

Jan