Minor problem with 64bTT: monthly accounting figures
kris at obsecurity.org
Mon Apr 19 15:57:16 PDT 2004
On Mon, Apr 19, 2004 at 05:50:42PM -0400, Garance A Drosihn wrote:
> At 2:08 PM -0700 4/19/04, Peter Wemm wrote:
> >Just fyi, ac does things like this:
> > time_t ut_timecopy;
> > ut_timecopy = _time32_to_time(event_up->ut_time);
> > strlcpy(str_result, ctime(&ut_timecopy), sizeof(str_result));
> >However, there is also a big scary comment that says:
> > * With sparc64 using 64-bit time_t's, there is some system
> > * routine which sets ut_time==0 (the high-order word of a
> > * 64-bit time) instead of a 32-bit time value.
> >It sounds like something clobbers ut_time..
> Big scary comment added by me, when fixing 'ac' to do more
> reasonable things with such records... Afaik, we have still
> not figured out what it is that writes records with zero for
> the timestamp.
Should an erratum be added in case this is unresolved by 5.3, or is
this too minor an issue?
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Size: 187 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/freebsd-sparc64/attachments/20040419/f2b6d7b6/attachment.bin
More information about the freebsd-sparc64