Difference between revisions of "Talk:376: Bug"
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
That is why on Unix epoch (the <nowiki>time_t</nowiki> type) is '''signed''' type, and covers dates before ''epoch''. --[[User:JakubNarebski|JakubNarebski]] ([[User talk:JakubNarebski|talk]]) 19:52, 5 July 2013 (UTC) | That is why on Unix epoch (the <nowiki>time_t</nowiki> type) is '''signed''' type, and covers dates before ''epoch''. --[[User:JakubNarebski|JakubNarebski]] ([[User talk:JakubNarebski|talk]]) 19:52, 5 July 2013 (UTC) | ||
:Ohh, and much more is missing. I did mark it as incomplete. We also have to talk about the time frame the 32bit ''epoch'' does cover, and what would be changed by using a 64bit variable. What will happen on 19 January 2038?--[[User:Dgbrt|Dgbrt]] ([[User talk:Dgbrt|talk]]) 20:17, 5 July 2013 (UTC) | :Ohh, and much more is missing. I did mark it as incomplete. We also have to talk about the time frame the 32bit ''epoch'' does cover, and what would be changed by using a 64bit variable. What will happen on 19 January 2038?--[[User:Dgbrt|Dgbrt]] ([[User talk:Dgbrt|talk]]) 20:17, 5 July 2013 (UTC) | ||
| + | ::The general hope, it appears, is that 64-bit integers will be firmly in place, having ousted the feeble 32-bit integers from the system time. As has been demonstrated in innumerable instances, it's rather difficult to eliminate legacy code from systems due to attempts to support older systems in a backward-compatible methodology. In short, however, it will take time to resolve time. [[User:Thokling|Thokling]] ([[User talk:Thokling|talk]]) 05:34, 22 September 2013 (UTC) | ||
Revision as of 05:34, 22 September 2013
That is why on Unix epoch (the time_t type) is signed type, and covers dates before epoch. --JakubNarebski (talk) 19:52, 5 July 2013 (UTC)
- Ohh, and much more is missing. I did mark it as incomplete. We also have to talk about the time frame the 32bit epoch does cover, and what would be changed by using a 64bit variable. What will happen on 19 January 2038?--Dgbrt (talk) 20:17, 5 July 2013 (UTC)
- The general hope, it appears, is that 64-bit integers will be firmly in place, having ousted the feeble 32-bit integers from the system time. As has been demonstrated in innumerable instances, it's rather difficult to eliminate legacy code from systems due to attempts to support older systems in a backward-compatible methodology. In short, however, it will take time to resolve time. Thokling (talk) 05:34, 22 September 2013 (UTC)
