On Thu, Sep 17, 2009 at 11:30:37AM -0400, Christopher Faylor wrote: >On Thu, Sep 17, 2009 at 05:26:04AM -0600, Eric Blake wrote: >>Is the transition to 1.7 a good time to change the ABI and offer a 64-bit >>time_t type that won't overflow in 2038? Would we have to do the same >>sort of transition magic as was done back in 1.5 for 32-bit vs. 64-bit off_t? > >Argh. I was *just* thinking about this yesterday. > >I think the answer is yes. We can probably do some header file magic to >allow backwards contemptibility, too. > >I hate making a last minute change like this now but it really is the best >time to get this done I think. I'll take a look at how hard it would be to >do this over the weekend. > >Thanks for bringing this up, Eric.
On second thought, I don't think we want to destabilize the release at this point. I guess this is one for Cygwin 1.9. cgf -- Problem reports: http://cygwin.com/problems.html FAQ: http://cygwin.com/faq/ Documentation: http://cygwin.com/docs.html Unsubscribe info: http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple