Re: 32 bits time_t and Y2038 issue

Liste des GroupesRevenir à ca embedded 
Sujet : Re: 32 bits time_t and Y2038 issue
De : invalid (at) *nospam* invalid.invalid (Grant Edwards)
Groupes : comp.arch.embedded
Date : 19. Mar 2025, 15:27:25
Autres entêtes
Organisation : PANIX Public Access Internet and UNIX, NYC
Message-ID : <vrek8d$8us$1@reader1.panix.com>
References : 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
User-Agent : slrn/1.0.3 (Linux)
On 2025-03-19, David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> wrote:

There are certainly a few things that Cygwin can handle that msys2
cannot.  For example, cygwin provides the "fork" system call that is
very slow and expensive on Windows, but fundamental to old *nix
software.

I believe Windows inherited that from VAX/VMS via Dave Cutler.

Back when the Earth was young I used to do embedded development on
VMS. I was, however, a "Unix guy" so my usual work environment on VMS
was "DEC/Shell" which was a v7 Bourne shell and surprisingly complete
set of v7 command line utilities that ran on VMS. [Without DEC/Shell,
I'm pretty sure I wouldn't have survived that project.] At one point I
wrote some fairly complex shell/awk/grep scripts to analyze and
cross-reference requirements documents written in LaTeX.  The scripts
would have taken a few minutes to run under v7 on an LSI-11, but they
took hours on a VAX 780 under VMS DEC/Shell (and used up ridiculous
amounts of CPU time). I was baffled.  I eventually tracked it down to
the overhead of "fork". A fork on Unix is a trivial operation, and
when running a shell program it happens a _lot_.

On VMS, a fork() call in a C program had _huge_ overhead compared to
Unix [but dog bless the guys in Massachusetts, it worked]. I'm not
sure if it was the process creation itself, or the "duplication" of
the parent that took so long. Maybe both. In the end it didn't matter:
it was so much easier to do stuff under DEC/Shell than it was under
DCL that we just ran the analysis scripts overnight.

--
Grant

Date Sujet#  Auteur
11 Mar 25 * 32 bits time_t and Y2038 issue55pozz
11 Mar 25 `* Re: 32 bits time_t and Y2038 issue54David Brown
11 Mar 25  +* Re: 32 bits time_t and Y2038 issue10pozz
12 Mar 25  i`* Re: 32 bits time_t and Y2038 issue9David Brown
12 Mar 25  i `* Re: 32 bits time_t and Y2038 issue8pozz
12 Mar 25  i  `* Re: 32 bits time_t and Y2038 issue7David Brown
12 Mar 25  i   `* Re: 32 bits time_t and Y2038 issue6pozz
12 Mar 25  i    `* Re: 32 bits time_t and Y2038 issue5David Brown
13 Mar 25  i     `* Re: 32 bits time_t and Y2038 issue4pozz
13 Mar 25  i      `* Re: 32 bits time_t and Y2038 issue3David Brown
14 Mar 25  i       `* Re: 32 bits time_t and Y2038 issue2pozz
14 Mar 25  i        `- Re: 32 bits time_t and Y2038 issue1David Brown
12 Mar 25  +* Re: 32 bits time_t and Y2038 issue4pozz
12 Mar 25  i+- Re: 32 bits time_t and Y2038 issue1David Brown
14 Mar 25  i`* Re: 32 bits time_t and Y2038 issue2Waldek Hebisch
14 Mar 25  i `- Re: 32 bits time_t and Y2038 issue1pozz
15 Mar 25  `* Re: 32 bits time_t and Y2038 issue39Michael Schwingen
15 Mar 25   +* Re: 32 bits time_t and Y2038 issue2Grant Edwards
16 Mar 25   i`- Re: 32 bits time_t and Y2038 issue1Michael Schwingen
18 Mar 25   `* Re: 32 bits time_t and Y2038 issue36pozz
18 Mar 25    +* Re: 32 bits time_t and Y2038 issue34David Brown
18 Mar 25    i+* Re: 32 bits time_t and Y2038 issue7pozz
18 Mar 25    ii`* Re: 32 bits time_t and Y2038 issue6David Brown
21 Mar 25    ii `* Re: 32 bits time_t and Y2038 issue5Michael Schwingen
21 Mar 25    ii  +* Re: 32 bits time_t and Y2038 issue3David Brown
21 Mar 25    ii  i`* Re: 32 bits time_t and Y2038 issue2Michael Schwingen
22 Mar 25    ii  i `- Re: 32 bits time_t and Y2038 issue1David Brown
21 Mar 25    ii  `- Re: 32 bits time_t and Y2038 issue1Waldek Hebisch
18 Mar 25    i`* Re: 32 bits time_t and Y2038 issue26Michael Schwingen
18 Mar 25    i `* Re: 32 bits time_t and Y2038 issue25David Brown
18 Mar 25    i  +* Re: 32 bits time_t and Y2038 issue15Grant Edwards
18 Mar 25    i  i+* Re: 32 bits time_t and Y2038 issue13Hans-Bernhard Bröker
19 Mar 25    i  ii+* Re: 32 bits time_t and Y2038 issue10David Brown
19 Mar 25    i  iii`* Re: 32 bits time_t and Y2038 issue9Grant Edwards
19 Mar 25    i  iii `* Re: 32 bits time_t and Y2038 issue8David Brown
19 Mar 25    i  iii  +* Re: 32 bits time_t and Y2038 issue4Grant Edwards
19 Mar 25    i  iii  i`* Re: 32 bits time_t and Y2038 issue3David Brown
21 Mar 25    i  iii  i `* Re: 32 bits time_t and Y2038 issue2Michael Schwingen
21 Mar 25    i  iii  i  `- Re: 32 bits time_t and Y2038 issue1Grant Edwards
19 Mar 25    i  iii  `* Re: 32 bits time_t and Y2038 issue3Waldek Hebisch
20 Mar 25    i  iii   `* Re: 32 bits time_t and Y2038 issue2David Brown
21 Mar 25    i  iii    `- Re: 32 bits time_t and Y2038 issue1pozz
21 Mar 25    i  ii`* Re: 32 bits time_t and Y2038 issue2Michael Schwingen
21 Mar 25    i  ii `- Re: 32 bits time_t and Y2038 issue1Hans-Bernhard Bröker
19 Mar 25    i  i`- Re: 32 bits time_t and Y2038 issue1David Brown
21 Mar 25    i  `* Re: 32 bits time_t and Y2038 issue9Waldek Hebisch
21 Mar 25    i   `* Re: 32 bits time_t and Y2038 issue8David Brown
21 Mar 25    i    +- Re: 32 bits time_t and Y2038 issue1pozz
22 Mar 25    i    +* Re: 32 bits time_t and Y2038 issue4Hans-Bernhard Bröker
22 Mar 25    i    i`* Re: 32 bits time_t and Y2038 issue3David Brown
22 Mar 25    i    i `* Re: 32 bits time_t and Y2038 issue2Michael Schwingen
22 Mar 25    i    i  `- Re: 32 bits time_t and Y2038 issue1David Brown
22 Mar 25    i    `* Re: 32 bits time_t and Y2038 issue2Waldek Hebisch
22 Mar 25    i     `- Re: 32 bits time_t and Y2038 issue1David Brown
18 Mar 25    `- Re: 32 bits time_t and Y2038 issue1Michael Schwingen

Haut de la page

Les messages affichés proviennent d'usenet.

NewsPortal