Not really processor based. The timestamp needs to be ulong (not advised but good for date ranges up to something like 2100, but cannot express dates before 1970). Or llong (long long). I think it’s a bad idea but I bet some people too lazy to change their database schema will just do this internally.
The type time_t in Linux is now 64bit regardless. So, compiling applications that used that will be fine. Of course it’s a problem if the database is storing 32bit signed integers. The type on the database can be changed too and this isn’t hard really.
As for the Y10K problem. It will almost entirely only be formatting problems I think. In the 80s and 90s, storage was at a premium, databases were generally much simpler and as such dates were very often stored as YYMMDD. There also wasn’t so much use of standard libraries. So this meant that to fix the Y2K problem required quite some work. In some cases there wasn’t time to make a proper solution. Where I was working there was a two step solution.
One team made the interim change to adjust where all dates were read and evaluate anything <30 (it wasn’t 30, it was another number but I forget which) to be 2000+number and anything else 1900+number. This meant the existing product would be fine for another 30 years or so.
The other team was writing the new version of the software, which used MSSQL server as a back-end, with proper datetime typed columns and worked properly with years before and after 2000.
I suspect this wasn’t unusual in terms of approach and most software is using some form of epoch datatype which should be fine in terms of storing, reading and writing dates beyond Y10K. But some hard-coded date format strings will need to be changed.
Not really processor based. The timestamp needs to be ulong (not advised but good for date ranges up to something like 2100, but cannot express dates before 1970). Or llong (long long). I think it’s a bad idea but I bet some people too lazy to change their database schema will just do this internally.
The type time_t in Linux is now 64bit regardless. So, compiling applications that used that will be fine. Of course it’s a problem if the database is storing 32bit signed integers. The type on the database can be changed too and this isn’t hard really.
As for the Y10K problem. It will almost entirely only be formatting problems I think. In the 80s and 90s, storage was at a premium, databases were generally much simpler and as such dates were very often stored as YYMMDD. There also wasn’t so much use of standard libraries. So this meant that to fix the Y2K problem required quite some work. In some cases there wasn’t time to make a proper solution. Where I was working there was a two step solution.
One team made the interim change to adjust where all dates were read and evaluate anything <30 (it wasn’t 30, it was another number but I forget which) to be 2000+number and anything else 1900+number. This meant the existing product would be fine for another 30 years or so.
The other team was writing the new version of the software, which used MSSQL server as a back-end, with proper datetime typed columns and worked properly with years before and after 2000.
I suspect this wasn’t unusual in terms of approach and most software is using some form of epoch datatype which should be fine in terms of storing, reading and writing dates beyond Y10K. But some hard-coded date format strings will need to be changed.
Source: I was there, 3000 years ago.