On Tuesday, 31 January 2023 15:21:47 PST Thiago Macieira wrote:
> If it's not going to be in the near future, I *can* modify the patch to
> detect that the new system call is not implemented and then fall back to
> the old one. That would mean that every contended mutex or semaphore will
> incur tw
El martes, 31 de enero de 2023 21:31:55 -03 usted escribió:
> El martes, 31 de enero de 2023 20:21:47 -03 Thiago Macieira escribió:
> > On Tuesday, 31 January 2023 15:00:07 PST Thiago Macieira wrote:
> > > As most of you are aware, a signed 32-bit time_t overflows in 2038.
> > > Linux
> > > has rec
El martes, 31 de enero de 2023 20:21:47 -03 Thiago Macieira escribió:
> On Tuesday, 31 January 2023 15:00:07 PST Thiago Macieira wrote:
> > As most of you are aware, a signed 32-bit time_t overflows in 2038. Linux
> > has recently deployed "time64_t" (by certain values of "recently", as in
> > 2015
On Tuesday, 31 January 2023 15:00:07 PST Thiago Macieira wrote:
> As most of you are aware, a signed 32-bit time_t overflows in 2038. Linux
> has recently deployed "time64_t" (by certain values of "recently", as in
> 2015, see [1])
> I don't know if this is an emulation bug. It's likely.
Ah, it l
On https://codereview.qt-project.org/c/qt/qtbase/+/455491
As most of you are aware, a signed 32-bit time_t overflows in 2038. Linux has
recently deployed "time64_t" (by certain values of "recently", as in 2015, see
[1]). Bug report QTBUG-110429 says QMutex and QSemaphore don't work after the
ov
