<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<rss xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/" xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/" xmlns:rdf="http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#" xmlns:taxo="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/taxonomy/" version="2.0">
  <channel>
    <title>topic Re: time-overflow in Operating System - HP-UX</title>
    <link>https://community.hpe.com/t5/operating-system-hp-ux/time-overflow/m-p/2512266#M895762</link>
    <description>I take it you mean the value of 'seconds since the epoch' which in the UK equates to Sun Sep  9 02:46:40 2001.&lt;BR /&gt;&lt;BR /&gt;There didn't ought to be a problem as the standard C routines use a 'time_t' variable type which will be at least a 32 bit integer value and is good until sometime in 2037.&lt;BR /&gt;&lt;BR /&gt;Interesting question though. I wonder if the 'Y2K police' are aware of it?&lt;BR /&gt;&lt;BR /&gt;Regards,&lt;BR /&gt;John</description>
    <pubDate>Mon, 02 Apr 2001 12:32:14 GMT</pubDate>
    <dc:creator>John Palmer</dc:creator>
    <dc:date>2001-04-02T12:32:14Z</dc:date>
    <item>
      <title>time-overflow</title>
      <link>https://community.hpe.com/t5/operating-system-hp-ux/time-overflow/m-p/2512264#M895760</link>
      <description>do you think, there will be a problem in&lt;BR /&gt;time-overflow to 1.000.000.000 seconds?</description>
      <pubDate>Mon, 02 Apr 2001 10:32:32 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://community.hpe.com/t5/operating-system-hp-ux/time-overflow/m-p/2512264#M895760</guid>
      <dc:creator>Günther Hänsel</dc:creator>
      <dc:date>2001-04-02T10:32:32Z</dc:date>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Re: time-overflow</title>
      <link>https://community.hpe.com/t5/operating-system-hp-ux/time-overflow/m-p/2512265#M895761</link>
      <description>Hi&lt;BR /&gt;&lt;BR /&gt;Are you trying to do calculations on this or do you have a process that is based on a 31.68808781403 Year cycle ?&lt;BR /&gt;&lt;BR /&gt;Paula</description>
      <pubDate>Mon, 02 Apr 2001 12:22:46 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://community.hpe.com/t5/operating-system-hp-ux/time-overflow/m-p/2512265#M895761</guid>
      <dc:creator>Paula J Frazer-Campbell</dc:creator>
      <dc:date>2001-04-02T12:22:46Z</dc:date>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Re: time-overflow</title>
      <link>https://community.hpe.com/t5/operating-system-hp-ux/time-overflow/m-p/2512266#M895762</link>
      <description>I take it you mean the value of 'seconds since the epoch' which in the UK equates to Sun Sep  9 02:46:40 2001.&lt;BR /&gt;&lt;BR /&gt;There didn't ought to be a problem as the standard C routines use a 'time_t' variable type which will be at least a 32 bit integer value and is good until sometime in 2037.&lt;BR /&gt;&lt;BR /&gt;Interesting question though. I wonder if the 'Y2K police' are aware of it?&lt;BR /&gt;&lt;BR /&gt;Regards,&lt;BR /&gt;John</description>
      <pubDate>Mon, 02 Apr 2001 12:32:14 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://community.hpe.com/t5/operating-system-hp-ux/time-overflow/m-p/2512266#M895762</guid>
      <dc:creator>John Palmer</dc:creator>
      <dc:date>2001-04-02T12:32:14Z</dc:date>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>

