0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
typedef uint32_t time_t;
typedef int64_t time_t;
So here is the first challenge: make the internal RTC of STM32F1 year 2038 ready. Reference chip is STM32F103CBT6. (small package, very cheap)
If it is a 32 bit counter then it is already 2038 ready. 2038 is only a problem if you use 31 bits (like in using an integer as a timestamp)!
Quote from: technix on May 30, 2017, 11:53:19 amSo here is the first challenge: make the internal RTC of STM32F1 year 2038 ready. Reference chip is STM32F103CBT6. (small package, very cheap)If it is a 32 bit counter then it is already 2038 ready. 2038 is only a problem if you use 31 bits (like in using an integer as a timestamp)!
Quote from: nctnico on May 30, 2017, 12:06:48 pmQuote from: technix on May 30, 2017, 11:53:19 amSo here is the first challenge: make the internal RTC of STM32F1 year 2038 ready. Reference chip is STM32F103CBT6. (small package, very cheap)If it is a 32 bit counter then it is already 2038 ready. 2038 is only a problem if you use 31 bits (like in using an integer as a timestamp)!No, it is 20 years from now, so it is someone else's problem. While I probably dont die in 20 years, I certanly hope I will not be working here.
Quote from: NANDBlog on May 30, 2017, 03:14:40 pmNo, it is 20 years from now, so it is someone else's problem. While I probably dont die in 20 years, I certanly hope I will not be working here.It would beme working on it - 24 now, 45 when the bug is triggered.
No, it is 20 years from now, so it is someone else's problem. While I probably dont die in 20 years, I certanly hope I will not be working here.
Quote from: technix on May 30, 2017, 03:34:40 pmQuote from: NANDBlog on May 30, 2017, 03:14:40 pmNo, it is 20 years from now, so it is someone else's problem. While I probably dont die in 20 years, I certanly hope I will not be working here.It would beme working on it - 24 now, 45 when the bug is triggered. At the same company?