Linux-kernel mailing list archive 2000-01,: RE: time_t size: The year 2038 bug?

# RE: time_t size: The year 2038 bug?

Jakma, Paul (Paul.Jakma@compaq.com)
Thu, 6 Jan 2000 12:59:21 -0000

- Messages sorted by: [ date ][ thread ][ subject ][ author ]
- Next message: Matthew Kirkwood: "Re: HELP: ANOTHER 6 JAN 2000 Kernel OOPS running under 2.2.14 now"
- Previous message: Lauri Tischler: "Re: time_t size: The year 2038 bug?"

> You are making his point, not refuting it. All these
> things have moved to
> 32-bits where they would previously have been done with 8-bit
> or 16-bit
> processors. They will likewise move to 64-bits.
>

you are missing the point.

as stated before: embedded systems use the smallest, most efficient, most
inexpensive chip that is up to the job.

8bit chips are still used all over the place. And even in 38 years time,
there will be plenty of tasks that can be done with a 32bit chip and a
lightweight unix-like OS.

Why would you use a 64 bit chip if a 32bit would do the job?

The 64 bit chip is bigger, so your device has to be bigger.
It will need a lot more power, so your device has to be bigger, needs more
expensive batteries, needs (a larger quantity of) and/or (more expensive)
ancillary components.. etc..
And finally, the 64 bit chip will itself cost a lot more than the 32 bit
one.

It's extra cost on top of extra cost on top of extra cost.

Granted there will be plenty of uses for 64bit chips in the future, but
there will also be plenty of tasks suitable for 32bit chips...

-paul jakma.

-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.rutgers.edu
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/

- Next message: Matthew Kirkwood: "Re: HELP: ANOTHER 6 JAN 2000 Kernel OOPS running under 2.2.14 now"
- Previous message: Lauri Tischler: "Re: time_t size: The year 2038 bug?"