Subj : Re: 'Leap Second' to Be Added on New Year's Eve This Year
To : All
From :
[email protected]
Date : Sun Jan 01 2017 12:46 pm
From: Wally W. <
[email protected]>
Subject: Re: 'Leap Second' to Be Added on New Year's Eve This Year
On Fri, 30 Dec 2016 17:48:04 -0800, Keith Thompson wrote:
>Mark Lloyd <
[email protected]> writes:
>> On 12/30/2016 04:37 PM, Keith Thompson wrote:
>>
>> [snip]
>>
>>> The time is stored in a time_t value returned by the time()
>>> function. The time_t type is required to be a real type (integer
>>> or floating-point, not complex) capable of representing times.
>>> (On many systems it's a signed integer representing seconds since
>>> 1970-01-01 00:00:00 UTC.)
>>
>> Used to be 32-bit, why I thought Y2K was going to be much less of a
>> problem than Y2.038K (Jan 17 2038 IIRC).
>[...]
>
>Tue 2038-01-19 03:14:08 UTC
>
>64-bit systems already use a 64-bit signed integer for time_t, which
>postpones the problem for about 292 billion years.
As I understand it, NT time uses a signed integer and tops out at
0x7FFFFFFFFFFFFFFF = in the year 30828
Unhappily, no sources suggest using negative integers will allow
setting the timestamp before the year 1600.
Otherwise, timestamps could be set for any date in known history; as
in 4004 BC, which by some counts includes Day One.
>And since C requires
>long long to be at least 64 bits, I expect that 32-bit systems (and
>smaller ones, if any) will transition to 64-bit time_t before 2038.
>
>Unlike 2-digit years, I suspect that most stored time_t values (which
>are rarely displayed) are in files that can be converted reasonably
>easily.
--- ViaMAIL!/WC v2.00
* Origin: ViaMAIL! - Lightning Fast Mailer for Wildcat! (1:261/20)
