3 ms·
Why not just store the year as years since 2000-- you'll be good 'til 2099. /s
by throwthere 5y ago
Why not just store the year as years since 2000-- you'll be good 'til 2099.
/s
- zinekeller 5y agoJust listing those using these epoch: Pre-NT Microsoft standards used a 7-bit integer, but only officially from 1980 (0) until 119 (2099). While DOS is officially discontinued, FAT32 is still in extensive use. If we go on the endurance of FAT (in compatibility), we need a new portable file system that must be implemented by 2050. Heck, exFAT suffers from the same problem. MICROSOFT, WHY?! Most RTC chips tends to be centennial - this means current chips only support up to 2099 or 2100 depending on the implementation.
- Dylan16807 5y ago> Most RTC chips tends to be centennial - this means current chips only support up to 2099 or 2100 depending on the implementation. With a reasonable implementation, that's not a problem. A clock doesn't need to handle old values, so you can assume the year is between build_date - 10 and build_date + 90, or something like that. Or at boot assume you're within 50 years of your last filesystem update. Also huh, exFAT added a byte to timestamps to change the resolution from 2 seconds to .01 seconds, but still kept the awkward bit fields from FAT32. Also some implementations break the new byte. Just changing the bit fields to a single number would have pushed the end date to 2250.