On 2007-03-24 17:04, Oliver Fromme <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > > UNIX Timestamp: > > 32 bits, starts from year 1970, ticks every second > > capable of representing the time from 1970 to 2106 > > No, the UNIX time_t is a signed value, so it ranges from 1901 to 2038 > when it's a 32bit int (such as on FreeBSD; Solaris has a 64bit time_t, > for example): > > $ date -r $(( - 2 ** 31 )) > Fri Dec 13 21:45:52 CET 1901 > $ date -r $(( 2 ** 31 - 1 )) > Tue Jan 19 04:14:07 CET 2038 > > (I'm using a privately patched version of /bin/sh which knows the "**" > operator, among other things.) > > > 'til then, computers will change > > sufficient for file timestamps, comparing file times > > FreeBSD's UFS2 already uses 96bit timestamps, where 64 bits are used > for seconds and 32 bits are used for nanoseconds. Is that sufficient > for you? > > See <ufs/ufs/dinode.h> for the actual definitions:
On 2007-03-25 01:36, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: >Oliver Fromme wrote: >> FreeBSD's UFS2 already uses 96bit timestamps, where 64 bits are used >> for seconds and 32 bits are used for nanoseconds. Is that sufficient >> for you? > > What the hell for? ``Just because it can.'' Seriously now, please show some more respect to Oliver and the time he spent to research and write up a very informative reply. It's not very nice to post an original email like the one you posted, posing a relatively unintelligible question, and then reply ``what the hell for?'' to Oliver's email. At least *he* tried to find out something by reading the source, he wrote a reply with details pointers to places where you can find out more for yourself, and was enough of a gentleman to *avoid* using potentially offensive words. Let's be a little more cordial to the ones who help us, shall we? - Giorgos _______________________________________________ freebsd-chat@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-chat To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
