From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (smtp1.linux-foundation.org [172.17.192.35]) by mail.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2942E942 for ; Thu, 15 May 2014 12:19:09 +0000 (UTC) Received: from mail-ee0-f41.google.com (mail-ee0-f41.google.com [74.125.83.41]) by smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 6A02A20114 for ; Thu, 15 May 2014 12:19:08 +0000 (UTC) Received: by mail-ee0-f41.google.com with SMTP id t10so616124eei.28 for ; Thu, 15 May 2014 05:19:07 -0700 (PDT) Sender: Grant Likely From: Grant Likely To: "H. Peter Anvin" , Josh Triplett , Arnd Bergmann In-Reply-To: <536D6FE2.5050503@zytor.com> References: <5367D989.1000504@linaro.org> <1399581426.11946.12.camel@deadeye.wl.decadent.org.uk> <20140509151043.GC15523@thunk.org> <4440149.cMfuUKn6MV@wuerfel> <20140509223315.GA5725@thin> <536D6FE2.5050503@zytor.com> Date: Thu, 15 May 2014 13:18:59 +0100 Message-Id: <20140515121859.BEC80C40B0E@trevor.secretlab.ca> Cc: John Stultz , ksummit-discuss@lists.linuxfoundation.org Subject: Re: [Ksummit-discuss] [CORE TOPIC] Dealing with 2038 List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , On Fri, 09 May 2014 17:16:34 -0700, "H. Peter Anvin" wrote: > On 05/09/2014 03:33 PM, Josh Triplett wrote: > >> > >> I think an important distinction is that the majority of systems that > >> will be seriously affected are embedded machines, which run a custom > >> user space anyway. > >> > >> x86-32 PCs and end-user distros are going to be largely extinct > >> in a couple of years and replaced by x64-64 or arm64 depending > >> on who you ask, and arm32 Android phones are going to be > >> replaced with arm64 hardware shortly after, or they see an ABI > >> break before then anyway. > >> The typical embedded machines don't even use glibc, and they > >> cross-build everything from source. > > > > In particular, even systems that want some of the properties of 32-bit > > on 64-bit hardware can use x32; the concern is with new systems that > > don't support 64-bit at all. Hence why we need to solve the problem > > *today*, so that the devices we're building in the next few years will > > survive 2038. > > > > I used to think 32-bit devices would be extinct by the mid-2020s. It is > now obvious that not only will that be wrong, it will be wrong in the > most dramatic way possible... simply because all the places where we > currently have $0.25 8-bit microcontrollers running trivial operating > systems we'll have $0.25 32-bit microcontrollers and a fair chunk of > them will run Linux. As we're getting to the point where the most > expensive part of the microcontroller is the package, there is simply no > reason to not have a powerful CPU with a real OS and minimize the amount > of time spent programming the damned thing. > > Not to mention that the Internet of Things is going to mean many of them > are going to want to be Internet-connected. And yet still, once deployed will never get updated. :-( g.