Re: Ok, who broke timed?

On 20-Nov-01 John Baldwin wrote: > > On 20-Nov-01 John Baldwin wrote: >> >> On 20-Nov-01 Kris Kennaway wrote: >>> On Mon, Nov 19, 2001 at 05:57:06PM -0800, John Baldwin wrote: On 20-Nov-01 Kris Kennaway wrote: > On Mon, Nov 19, 2001 at 03:06:28PM -0800, John Baldwin wrote:

Re: Ok, who broke timed?

On 20-Nov-01 John Baldwin wrote: > > On 20-Nov-01 Kris Kennaway wrote: >> On Mon, Nov 19, 2001 at 05:57:06PM -0800, John Baldwin wrote: >>> >>> On 20-Nov-01 Kris Kennaway wrote: >>> > On Mon, Nov 19, 2001 at 03:06:28PM -0800, John Baldwin wrote: >>> >> Does timed have some major 64 bit issues o

Re: Ok, who broke timed?

On 20-Nov-01 Kris Kennaway wrote: > On Mon, Nov 19, 2001 at 05:57:06PM -0800, John Baldwin wrote: >> >> On 20-Nov-01 Kris Kennaway wrote: >> > On Mon, Nov 19, 2001 at 03:06:28PM -0800, John Baldwin wrote: >> >> Does timed have some major 64 bit issues or something? Trying to >> >> run timed on

Re: Ok, who broke timed?

Leo Bicknell wrote: > On Mon, Nov 19, 2001 at 04:51:29PM -0800, John Baldwin wrote: > > That looks very promising indeed. Hrmm. I should go see if NetBSD has fix ed > > this. I guess having timeval be different sizes on different archs is a bi t of > > a pain. :( Perhaps it should use

Re: Ok, who broke timed?

On Mon, Nov 19, 2001 at 05:57:06PM -0800, John Baldwin wrote: > > On 20-Nov-01 Kris Kennaway wrote: > > On Mon, Nov 19, 2001 at 03:06:28PM -0800, John Baldwin wrote: > >> Does timed have some major 64 bit issues or something? Trying to > >> run timed on my 5.0 alpha from a 4.4 x86 box proves dis

Re: Ok, who broke timed?

On 20-Nov-01 Leo Bicknell wrote: > On Mon, Nov 19, 2001 at 04:51:29PM -0800, John Baldwin wrote: >> That looks very promising indeed. Hrmm. I should go see if NetBSD has >> fixed >> this. I guess having timeval be different sizes on different archs is a bit >> of >> a pain. :( Perhaps it shou

Re: Ok, who broke timed?

On 20-Nov-01 Kris Kennaway wrote: > On Mon, Nov 19, 2001 at 03:06:28PM -0800, John Baldwin wrote: >> Does timed have some major 64 bit issues or something? Trying to >> run timed on my 5.0 alpha from a 4.4 x86 box proves disastrous. 5.0 >> x86 clients work fine. The alpha keeps getting its dat

Re: Ok, who broke timed?

On Mon, Nov 19, 2001 at 03:06:28PM -0800, John Baldwin wrote: > Does timed have some major 64 bit issues or something? Trying to > run timed on my 5.0 alpha from a 4.4 x86 box proves disastrous. 5.0 > x86 clients work fine. The alpha keeps getting its date set back > into 1970: It's probably n

Re: Ok, who broke timed?

On Mon, Nov 19, 2001 at 04:51:29PM -0800, John Baldwin wrote: > That looks very promising indeed. Hrmm. I should go see if NetBSD has fixed > this. I guess having timeval be different sizes on different archs is a bit of > a pain. :( Perhaps it should use uint32_t? Or perhaps struct tsp shoul

Re: Ok, who broke timed?

On 20-Nov-01 Erik Trulsson wrote: > On Mon, Nov 19, 2001 at 03:06:28PM -0800, John Baldwin wrote: >> Does timed have some major 64 bit issues or something? Trying to run timed >> on >> my 5.0 alpha from a 4.4 x86 box proves disastrous. 5.0 x86 clients work >> fine. >> The alpha keeps getting i

Re: Ok, who broke timed?

On Mon, Nov 19, 2001 at 03:06:28PM -0800, John Baldwin wrote: > Does timed have some major 64 bit issues or something? Trying to run timed on > my 5.0 alpha from a 4.4 x86 box proves disastrous. 5.0 x86 clients work fine. > The alpha keeps getting its date set back into 1970: After quick look

Ok, who broke timed?

Does timed have some major 64 bit issues or something? Trying to run timed on my 5.0 alpha from a 4.4 x86 box proves disastrous. 5.0 x86 clients work fine. The alpha keeps getting its date set back into 1970: Nov 19 14:06:02 baz timed[379]: slave to in.cx Jan 2 21:35:41 baz timed[379]: date c