On 03/30/2012 02:23 PM, Stefan Weil wrote:
Am 30.03.2012 21:16, schrieb Anthony Liguori:
On 03/30/2012 02:13 PM, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
Il 30/03/2012 21:06, Anthony Liguori ha scritto:
On 03/30/2012 01:55 PM, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
Il 30/03/2012 20:29, Anthony Liguori ha scritto:
Now it will fail with w64 (which uses 64 bit time_t and
a 32 bit long).
That's a bug in w64 (it has a broken ABI).
Do we actually build and run on w64??
It's actually sensible and x32 does the same. Not too urgent though.
I don't understand how making a long 32 bit is sensible but... I sent a
patch that should at least address q64.
Am not sure what x32 is though.
x32 is 32-bit ABI (with 32-bit pointers and 4GB address space) with the
x86-64 (64-bit) ISA.
Wow. That's.. interesting :-)
In general, violating sizeof(long) >= sizeof(void *) seems like an exceeding
bad idea to me.
Regards,
Anthony Liguori
Any 32 bit system will have to use a 64 bit time_t sooner or later
to avoid an overflow. Not only w64 but also w32 supports it.
Future 32 bit Linux versions will also need it.
The size of a long is a different matter.
Yet another reason that we all should build bunkers for the upcoming Unix epoch
overflow apocalypse.. that is, if the machines don't revolt before 2038 ;-)
Regards,
Anthony Liguori
Regards,
Stefan W.
