64bit timestamp

[Giorgos Keramidas]

On 2007-03-24 17:04, Oliver Fromme <olli at lurza.secnetix.de> wrote:
> deeptech71 at gmail.com wrote:
> > UNIX Timestamp:
> >    32 bits, starts from year 1970, ticks every second
> >    capable of representing the time from 1970 to 2106
> 
> No, the UNIX time_t is a signed value, so it ranges from 1901 to 2038
> when it's a 32bit int (such as on FreeBSD; Solaris has a 64bit time_t,
> for example):
> 
> $ date -r $(( - 2 ** 31 ))
> Fri Dec 13 21:45:52 CET 1901
> $ date -r $(( 2 ** 31 - 1 ))
> Tue Jan 19 04:14:07 CET 2038
> 
> (I'm using a privately patched version of /bin/sh which knows the "**"
> operator, among other things.)
> 
>  >    'til then, computers will change
>  >    sufficient for file timestamps, comparing file times
> 
> FreeBSD's UFS2 already uses 96bit timestamps, where 64 bits are used
> for seconds and 32 bits are used for nanoseconds.  Is that sufficient
> for you?
> 
> See <ufs/ufs/dinode.h> for the actual definitions:

On 2007-03-25 01:36, deeptech71 at gmail.com wrote:
>Oliver Fromme wrote:
>> FreeBSD's UFS2 already uses 96bit timestamps, where 64 bits are used
>> for seconds and 32 bits are used for nanoseconds.  Is that sufficient
>> for you?
> 
> What the hell for?

``Just because it can.''

Seriously now, please show some more respect to Oliver and the time he
spent to research and write up a very informative reply.  It's not very
nice to post an original email like the one you posted, posing a
relatively unintelligible question, and then reply ``what the hell
for?'' to Oliver's email.  At least *he* tried to find out something by
reading the source, he wrote a reply with details pointers to places
where you can find out more for yourself, and was enough of a gentleman
to *avoid* using potentially offensive words.

Let's be a little more cordial to the ones who help us, shall we?

- Giorgos