Re: 64bit time_t

"Doug Ewell" <doug@ewellic.org> Sat, 21 June 2008 18:47 UTC

Return-Path: <ietf-bounces@ietf.org>
X-Original-To: ietf-archive@megatron.ietf.org
Delivered-To: ietfarch-ietf-archive@core3.amsl.com
Received: from [127.0.0.1] (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id BDE8D3A6958; Sat, 21 Jun 2008 11:47:04 -0700 (PDT)
X-Original-To: ietf@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ietf@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 720773A6958 for <ietf@core3.amsl.com>; Sat, 21 Jun 2008 11:47:03 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.668
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.668 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.070, BAYES_00=-2.599, STOX_REPLY_TYPE=0.001]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id pzfFqjobwG6e for <ietf@core3.amsl.com>; Sat, 21 Jun 2008 11:47:01 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from smtpauth13.prod.mesa1.secureserver.net (smtpauth13.prod.mesa1.secureserver.net [64.202.165.37]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with SMTP id 9B1C03A6887 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Sat, 21 Jun 2008 11:47:01 -0700 (PDT)
Received: (qmail 29611 invoked from network); 21 Jun 2008 18:47:05 -0000
Received: from unknown (71.229.245.230) by smtpauth13.prod.mesa1.secureserver.net (64.202.165.37) with ESMTP; 21 Jun 2008 18:47:05 -0000
Message-ID: <2014A82B3D1B4558BCC822E4BD26C68B@DGBP7M81>
From: "Doug Ewell" <doug@ewellic.org>
To: <ietf@ietf.org>
References: <BLU120-W240BCEF0CF3ACCC84DFBF3CAA40@phx.gbl>
Subject: Re: 64bit time_t
Date: Sat, 21 Jun 2008 12:47:03 -0600
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Priority: 3
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2900.5512
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.5512
X-BeenThere: ietf@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF Discussion <ietf.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf>, <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/pipermail/ietf>
List-Post: <mailto:ietf@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf>, <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"; Format="flowed"
Sender: ietf-bounces@ietf.org
Errors-To: ietf-bounces@ietf.org

Chad Giffin <typosity at hotmail dot com> wrote:

> Make time_t 64 bits wide.  Make the most significant bit (bit 63) a 
> sign bit.  Make the next 50 significant bits store the number of 
> seconds elapsed since January 1st 2000 GMT.  The last 13 bits be of 
> fractions of a second.
>
> What do you think?

Write up an Internet-Draft and it won't be off-topic any more.  Just be 
sure to check for prior art first, because you're likely not the first 
person to try to solve this problem.

I would argue that if the data type has a 35 million year span, then 
setting the baseline at 2000-01-01 seems arbitrary.

--
Doug Ewell  *  Arvada, Colorado, USA  *  RFC 4645  *  UTN #14
http://www.ewellic.org
http://www1.ietf.org/html.charters/ltru-charter.html
http://www.alvestrand.no/mailman/listinfo/ietf-languages  ˆ

_______________________________________________
IETF mailing list
IETF@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf