From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on dcvr.yhbt.net X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-ASN: AS31976 209.132.180.0/23 X-Spam-Status: No, score=-5.4 required=3.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI,RP_MATCHES_RCVD shortcircuit=no autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [209.132.180.67]) by dcvr.yhbt.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id B7A7A1FE4E for ; Tue, 12 Jul 2016 16:09:27 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1752036AbcGLQJZ (ORCPT ); Tue, 12 Jul 2016 12:09:25 -0400 Received: from cloud.peff.net ([50.56.180.127]:43563 "HELO cloud.peff.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with SMTP id S1751254AbcGLQJZ (ORCPT ); Tue, 12 Jul 2016 12:09:25 -0400 Received: (qmail 9849 invoked by uid 102); 12 Jul 2016 16:09:25 -0000 Received: from Unknown (HELO peff.net) (10.0.1.2) by cloud.peff.net (qpsmtpd/0.84) with SMTP; Tue, 12 Jul 2016 12:09:25 -0400 Received: (qmail 4144 invoked by uid 107); 12 Jul 2016 16:09:45 -0000 Received: from sigill.intra.peff.net (HELO sigill.intra.peff.net) (10.0.0.7) by peff.net (qpsmtpd/0.84) with SMTP; Tue, 12 Jul 2016 12:09:45 -0400 Received: by sigill.intra.peff.net (sSMTP sendmail emulation); Tue, 12 Jul 2016 12:09:21 -0400 Date: Tue, 12 Jul 2016 12:09:21 -0400 From: Jeff King To: Junio C Hamano Cc: Johannes Schindelin , Andreas Schwab , Git Mailing List Subject: Re: [ANNOUNCE] Git v2.9.1 Message-ID: <20160712160921.GA2965@sigill.intra.peff.net> References: <87lh17kgdy.fsf@linux-m68k.org> <20160711235417.GA26163@sigill.intra.peff.net> <20160712151630.GE613@sigill.intra.peff.net> <20160712153520.GG613@sigill.intra.peff.net> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: Sender: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org On Tue, Jul 12, 2016 at 08:41:42AM -0700, Junio C Hamano wrote: > Jeff King writes: > > > I am not certain that there is a modern system with 32-bit time_t. We > > know there are systems with 32-bit unsigned long, and I think that is > > what produced the results people saw. I'd expect even 32-bit systems to > > use "int64_t" or similar for their time_t these days. > > OK. In case it wasn't clear, I was mostly guessing there. So I dug a bit further, and indeed, I am wrong. Linux never bumped to a 64-bit time_t on i386 because of the ABI headaches. That being said, I still think the "clamp to time_t" strategy is reasonable. Unless you are doing something really exotic like pretending to be from the future, nobody will care for 20 years. And at that point, systems with a 32-bit time_t are going to have to do _something_, because time() is going to start returning bogus values. So as long as we behave reasonably (e.g., clamping values and not generating wrapped nonsense), I think that's a fine solution. -Peff