From ilug-admin@linux.ie Mon Sep 2 13:14:12 2002 Return-Path: Delivered-To: zzzz@localhost.netnoteinc.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by phobos.labs.netnoteinc.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C2E7C47C74 for ; Mon, 2 Sep 2002 07:42:03 -0400 (EDT) Received: from phobos [127.0.0.1] by localhost with IMAP (fetchmail-5.9.0) for zzzz@localhost (single-drop); Mon, 02 Sep 2002 12:42:03 +0100 (IST) Received: from lugh.tuatha.org (root@lugh.tuatha.org [194.125.145.45]) by dogma.slashnull.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id g827VJZ23920 for ; Mon, 2 Sep 2002 08:31:19 +0100 Received: from lugh (root@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by lugh.tuatha.org (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id IAA22561; Mon, 2 Sep 2002 08:30:44 +0100 Received: from moe.jinny.ie (homer.jinny.ie [193.120.171.3]) by lugh.tuatha.org (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id IAA22526 for ; Mon, 2 Sep 2002 08:30:36 +0100 X-Authentication-Warning: lugh.tuatha.org: Host homer.jinny.ie [193.120.171.3] claimed to be moe.jinny.ie Received: from jlooney.jinny.ie (fw.jinny.ie [193.120.171.2]) by moe.jinny.ie (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3F9167FC40 for ; Mon, 2 Sep 2002 08:30:35 +0100 (IST) Received: by jlooney.jinny.ie (Postfix, from userid 500) id 58AA19A5; Mon, 2 Sep 2002 08:30:58 +0100 (IST) Date: Mon, 2 Sep 2002 08:30:57 +0100 From: "John P. Looney" To: ILUG main list Subject: Re: [ILUG] Seconds to date? Message-Id: <20020902073057.GT1757@jinny.ie> Reply-To: ilug@linux.ie Mail-Followup-To: ILUG main list References: <20020901004414.A15357@ie.suberic.net> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.4i X-Os: Red Hat Linux 7.3/Linux 2.4.18-3 X-Url: http://www.redbrick.dcu.ie/~valen X-Gnupg-Publickey: http://www.redbrick.dcu.ie/~valen/public.asc Sender: ilug-admin@linux.ie Errors-To: ilug-admin@linux.ie X-Mailman-Version: 1.1 Precedence: bulk List-Id: Irish Linux Users' Group X-Beenthere: ilug@linux.ie On Sun, Sep 01, 2002 at 04:14:17PM +0100, Paul Jakma mentioned: > On Sun, 1 Sep 2002, kevin lyda wrote: > > > gnu date is limited by time_t. but i thought time_t expired in 2037? > > this seems to show it expiring in 2038: > > (2^31-1)/3600/24/365+1970 > 2038 > > course, on UltraSparc, x86-64, IA64, alpha, etc: > > (2^63-1)/3600/24/365+1970 > 292471210647 > > so we should be safe enough. May I assume that x86-64 will be able to use a 64bit time_t too? Kate -- Irish Linux Users' Group: ilug@linux.ie http://www.linux.ie/mailman/listinfo/ilug for (un)subscription information. List maintainer: listmaster@linux.ie