Johannes Schindelin <johannes.schinde...@gmx.de> writes: > One notable fallout of this patch series is that on 64-bit Linux (and > other platforms where `unsigned long` is 64-bit), we now limit the range > of dates to LONG_MAX (i.e. the *signed* maximum value). This needs to be > done as `time_t` can be signed (and indeed is at least on my Ubuntu > setup). > > Obviously, I think that we can live with that, and I hope that all > interested parties agree.
s/ulong/time_t/ is definintely a good change, and it will take us to a place we would want to be in in some future. As long as there remains no platform we care about whose time_t and long are still 32-bit signed integer, there will be a fallout to them with this change. Probably it is of a larger impact than losing the upper half of a 64-bit timestamp range on larger boxes. Hopefully those platforms have died out (or at least we don't mind breaking them)? It appears that we use uint64_t in many places in our code. So while philosophically time_t is the right type, uint64_t might be practically a safer alternative type to use at the endgame patch in this series. I haven't seen it yet, but presumably the last one 6/6 is the endgame?
