[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Date: Sat, 29 Jun 2019 12:21:16 -0400
From: Rich Felker <dalias@...c.org>
To: musl@...ts.openwall.com
Subject: Re: Revisiting 64-bit time_t
On Sat, Jun 29, 2019 at 03:36:19AM -0500, A. Wilcox wrote:
> Overall this seems like a decent proposal. However...
>
> On Jun 28, 2019, at 10:06 AM, Rich Felker <dalias@...c.org> wrote:
> > However Y2038 is not all that far off, desktop/server distros really
> > have rather little interest left in 32-bit archs (especially not
> > coordinating a costly ABI swap just for them)
>
> This is really incorrect. We at Adélie are QUITE interested in
> 32-bit architectures including:
>
> [...]
>
> Please, please do not write off 32-bit desktop usage.
I'm sorry my wording contributed to a narrative that 32-bit is dead;
that's not at all my intent, but I can see how it could be harmful to
efforts to maintain support.
My intent here is the other direction -- due to dominance of 64-bit
archs on desktop and server these days, there's much less effort being
put into the future of 32-bit ones, and I don't want to make a
decision here that would incentivize distros that don't already care
strongly about keeping 32-bit arch support to just drop it, rather
than going through a painful ABI swap-out.
Thanks for your work continuing to press applications not to break
these archs.
Rich
Powered by blists - more mailing lists
Confused about mailing lists and their use?
Read about mailing lists on Wikipedia
and check out these
guidelines on proper formatting of your messages.
