[y2038] r186 committed - OS X 10.6 appears to be 64 bit clean

[codesite...@google.com]

Revision: 186
Author: schwern
Date: Wed Apr 14 12:27:19 2010
Log: OS X 10.6 appears to be 64 bit clean
http://code.google.com/p/y2038/source/detail?r=186

Modified:
/wiki/WhyBother.wiki

=======================================
--- /wiki/WhyBother.wiki Tue Sep 23 13:24:30 2008
+++ /wiki/WhyBother.wiki Wed Apr 14 12:27:19 2010
@@ -21,7 +21,7 @@

For example, your shiny new Apple computer has a 64 bit processor in it.
But the operating system is still operating with 32 bit integers and a 32
bit time_t and has a 2038 bug. Why?

-When you change the integer size you need to recompile all your software.
Then Mac applications would have to ship 32 bit and 64 bit versions. Apple
has dealt with this sort of thing gracefully several times in the past
("fat binaries" for the Motorola -> PowerPC switch,
[https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Universal_binary "universal
binaries"] for the PowerPC -> Intel switch), but it's still a painful and
buggy process for both developer and user.
+When you change the integer size you need to recompile all your software.
Then Mac applications would have to ship 32 bit and 64 bit versions. Apple
has dealt with this sort of thing gracefully several times in the past
("fat binaries" for the Motorola -> PowerPC switch,
[https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Universal_binary "universal
binaries"] for the PowerPC -> Intel switch), but it's still a painful and
buggy process for both developer and user. (Note: OS X 10.6 appears to
have made the jump to 64 bit software).

I don't blame them for not thinking it worth the effort. Windows has had
64 bit versions since the early nineties, and very few people use them.