All... Many thanks to all those who replied to my Posting, even the snotty replies. Original Posting attached at the end of this mail. Several people gave me a slapped wrist for not seeing this discussion before. Apparently this has been raised in previous weeks. I'm sorry to have asked the question again and wasted everybody's time. I don't always have time to read all of the questions but always try to check the summaries. I dint see a summary on this (but that's not to say there wasn't one). Apologies once again if I missed this and caused such obvious offence to some. I was advised that you can find more information documented at: http://www.merlyn.demon.co.uk/critdate.htm However, I cant get to this page for some reason. Seems I was worrying about nothing at all. Thanks for everybody who replied. Too many to mention. Two very good concise replies are shown below: "Yes, the timestamp will go to 10 digits. NO THIS WILL NOT DO ANYTHING! time() returns milliseconds since Jan 1, 1970. This number will not overflow any integer wheels until July 8, 2038 (at 03:14:07 UTC if you want to time it). By then, I fully expect everyone to be on at least 64-bit platforms, which means it will cease to matter until well after we're dead and gone. No one EVER writes code that "only looks at the first 9 digits" because hardly anyone ever even uses the "real" value of time(). It is usually converted into a human-readable form with the localtime() function." "It is probably worthwhile to run you in-house-developed apps on a test server with the date set after September. This is more for the sysadmin sanity than anything else. From what I understand, it takes a fair amount of skill to write an app in such a way that it would fail..." Best regards - Tony Miller -----------------------------------------------Original Message----- All... I have heard a rumour from the SUN world that the unix time() value becomes 10 digits for the first time on Sun Sep 9 01:46:40 2001 "For the first time in modern computer history, the timestamp will be something besides 9 digits". Is this true? Is this only a problem likely to affect 32 bit Unix variants (i.e.., Solaris 2.6 and earlier)? Will dunix (64 bits) be ok or will it likely to suffer in the same way (maybe only 32 significant bits of data??)? Do we think that this could break anything? If so, is this fixed in any particular patch kit? Are any specific releases of dunix likely to be affected by this whilst other (later) releases are ok? Sorry to pose so many vague questions, but any help you can give would be appreciated. regards - TonyReceived on Tue Jul 17 17:04:28 2001
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Wed Mar 23 2016 - 16:24:59 EDT