From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1753945Ab1HaTpl (ORCPT ); Wed, 31 Aug 2011 15:45:41 -0400 Received: from terminus.zytor.com ([198.137.202.10]:57571 "EHLO mail.zytor.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1753509Ab1HaTp2 (ORCPT ); Wed, 31 Aug 2011 15:45:28 -0400 Message-ID: <4E5E8F04.9030303@zytor.com> Date: Wed, 31 Aug 2011 12:44:04 -0700 From: "H. Peter Anvin" User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:6.0) Gecko/20110816 Thunderbird/6.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Arnd Bergmann CC: Linus Torvalds , Christoph Hellwig , LKML , "H.J. Lu" , Ingo Molnar , Thomas Gleixner , Richard Kuo , Mark Salter , Jonas Bonn , Tobias Klauser Subject: Re: RFD: x32 ABI system call numbers References: <4E582577.2060805@zytor.com> <201108311839.52863.arnd@arndb.de> <1397886.AAh13B9r2H@wuerfel> In-Reply-To: <1397886.AAh13B9r2H@wuerfel> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On 08/31/2011 12:18 PM, Arnd Bergmann wrote: >> >> You do realize that there are probably quite a lot of programs that >> depend on signed time_t because they really do care about dates before >> 1970? > > Yes, it already occurred to me after I had written the above that we > really want it to be signed, especially to allow a meaningful conversion > at least one-way between 32 and 64 bit time_t values. > The only reason I mentioned redefining 32-bit time_t as unsigned was for *legacy ABIs*. -hpa