From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from simark.ca by simark.ca with LMTP id 4M9JJ8/68GIVvSIAWB0awg (envelope-from ) for ; Mon, 08 Aug 2022 08:00:15 -0400 Received: by simark.ca (Postfix, from userid 112) id 96FF61EA06; Mon, 8 Aug 2022 08:00:15 -0400 (EDT) Authentication-Results: simark.ca; dkim=pass (1024-bit key; secure) header.d=sourceware.org header.i=@sourceware.org header.a=rsa-sha256 header.s=default header.b=h/3Z2UED; dkim-atps=neutral X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.6 (2021-04-09) on simark.ca X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.0 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,MAILING_LIST_MULTI,RDNS_DYNAMIC,URIBL_BLOCKED autolearn=unavailable autolearn_force=no version=3.4.6 Received: from sourceware.org (ip-8-43-85-97.sourceware.org [8.43.85.97]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (2048 bits) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) by simark.ca (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 16C2B1E9ED for ; Mon, 8 Aug 2022 08:00:15 -0400 (EDT) Received: from server2.sourceware.org (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by sourceware.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8184D3856973 for ; Mon, 8 Aug 2022 12:00:14 +0000 (GMT) DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 sourceware.org 8184D3856973 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=sourceware.org; s=default; t=1659960014; bh=H1A7qluWSTKLXl3VqZRriQdNXGqDNrYczkI0XLwyivQ=; h=Date:To:In-Reply-To:Subject:References:List-Id:List-Unsubscribe: List-Archive:List-Post:List-Help:List-Subscribe:From:Reply-To:Cc: From; b=h/3Z2UEDDXJsRKfbxfUyEIpWHeP81lH2B2mXJlF1T583xM1KLTEJMM9h3QnQi4MCQ wfbfsF7h8UMSV1Bru4gdD3iYipSzD6wk/5t82aOKYqrB3nT7irK+FHH3+5Tui69nQ+ qGfqnT+5OCgQqfeWNIvSZTEiU7ukhaJRh33GAgLQ= Received: from eggs.gnu.org (eggs.gnu.org [IPv6:2001:470:142:3::10]) by sourceware.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 404C838582BE; Mon, 8 Aug 2022 11:58:55 +0000 (GMT) DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.4.1 sourceware.org 404C838582BE Received: from fencepost.gnu.org ([2001:470:142:3::e]:43730) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1oL1PI-0008IM-PZ; Mon, 08 Aug 2022 07:58:52 -0400 Received: from [87.69.77.57] (port=2987 helo=home-c4e4a596f7) by fencepost.gnu.org with esmtpsa (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1oL1PI-00028L-8q; Mon, 08 Aug 2022 07:58:52 -0400 Date: Mon, 08 Aug 2022 14:58:39 +0300 Message-Id: <83zggfuets.fsf@gnu.org> To: Luis Machado In-Reply-To: (message from Luis Machado on Mon, 8 Aug 2022 12:34:02 +0100) Subject: Re: [PATCH] Disable year 2038 support on 32-bit hosts by default References: <20220801075149.1152064-1-luis.machado@arm.com> <959a19b9-b2c3-6638-e0b9-b66ca8328574@simark.ca> <4224183e-e2c1-9a98-7e41-61a58e49aa29@arm.com> <14374ca2-3979-f2d2-2296-a36ba9c615d2@simark.ca> <834jyw2bwd.fsf@gnu.org> <83e592ff-fa28-ddfb-a46d-79db726d2b5e@arm.com> MIME-version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-BeenThere: gdb-patches@sourceware.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: Gdb-patches mailing list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , From: Eli Zaretskii via Gdb-patches Reply-To: Eli Zaretskii Cc: simark@simark.ca, eggert@cs.ucla.edu, binutils@sourceware.org, gdb-patches@sourceware.org Errors-To: gdb-patches-bounces+public-inbox=simark.ca@sourceware.org Sender: "Gdb-patches" > Date: Mon, 8 Aug 2022 12:34:02 +0100 > Cc: eggert@cs.ucla.edu, binutils@sourceware.org, gdb-patches@sourceware.org > From: Luis Machado > > On 8/2/22 07:42, Luis Machado via Gdb-patches wrote: > > On 8/1/22 16:59, Eli Zaretskii wrote: > >>> Date: Mon, 1 Aug 2022 11:37:27 -0400 > >>> From: Simon Marchi via Gdb-patches > >>> > >>> My opinion would be to follow the trend and use 64-bit everywhere, and > >>> not have to worry about future-proofing anymore. > >> > >> That's not possible everywhere, though. > >> > >> And I very much doubt that time has come for us to worry about the > >> year 2038.  Does anyone believe GDB 13 will still be used in that > >> year? > > > > I doubt it. There was some discussion here: > > > > https://www.mail-archive.com/bug-gnulib@gnu.org/msg41057.html > > > > I'm cc-ing Paul Eggert for additional considerations about this, but at the moment it seems the safest > > is to just use 32-bit time_t for 32-bit hosts. There were some concerns about breaking compatibility if > > we moved to 64-bit time_t on 32-bit hosts. > > > > Maybe the best course of action is to get autoconf patched to support year2038 checks and then use that > > in binutils-gdb. > > Any additional thoughts on this one? What is the current plan if no one else chimes in?