Date: Sun, 9 May 1999 11:46:13 +0300 (IDT) From: Eli Zaretskii X-Sender: eliz AT is To: Oscar Almer cc: djgpp AT delorie DOT com Subject: Re: your mail In-Reply-To: <19990507100722.17463.qmail@www0c.netaddress.usa.net> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Reply-To: djgpp AT delorie DOT com X-Mailing-List: djgpp AT delorie DOT com X-Unsubscribes-To: listserv AT delorie DOT com Precedence: bulk On 7 May 1999, Oscar Almer wrote: > I have been slightly put off by the non-existant official year 2000 statement > on the DJGPP homepage. How much research can it take? You need to clarify what do you mean by ``DJGPP''. If you mean the software developed as part of the core DJGPP project, and which is distributed in the files djdevNNN.zip and djlsrNNN.zip, then there are no Y2K problems there. These distributions include a standard C library which represents time as the number of seconds since 1/1/1970; these will not overflow before the 22nd century. Some non-standard functions use a 7-bit year since 1980; these also are good enough until the 22nd century. djdev and djlsr also include several utilities, but none of these deals with time directly, so they all inherit the properties of the library. However, if by ``DJGPP'' you mean the ports of GNU tools and the rest of stuff available on the DJGPP sites in directories other than v2/, then your question should be presented to the maintainer(s) of those tools. The above is a technical opinion based on certain knowledge of the internals of the DJGPP library; please do not treat it as some kind of official statement. I have no idea what kind of research would it take to generate a formal Y2K compliance statement (nor do I understand why somebody with some knowledge in the subject matter would need to do that).