Jukka Marin writes:
> On Tue, Aug 04, 1998 at 06:08:08PM -0400, Allen Briggs wrote:
> > I don't know the code in question, so I'm not sure that this is
> > relevant, but you might want to check and see that you don't want
> > to make it >= 138 (and reset to yr = 137) since (IIRC), signed 32
> > bits with the current base maxes out in mid-January, 2038.  In other
> > words, will your patch be useful if the RT clock shows 1 Feb 2038?
> 
> Pardon the stupid question, but why isnt't time_t simply made unsigned
> which would solve the problem until 2106?

Because the API requires the ability of time_t's to go negative, just
as it requires the ability of off_t's to go negative.

Perry