Date: Thu, 13 Aug 1998 22:00:03 -0700 (PDT) From: Jim Shankland <jas@flyingfox.com> To: brawley@camtech.com.au, hackers@FreeBSD.ORG, mph@pobox.com Subject: Re: 64-bit time_t Message-ID: <199808140500.WAA08017@biggusdiskus.flyingfox.com> In-Reply-To: <19980814000605.A25012@astro.psu.edu>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Matthew Hunt <mph@pobox.com> writes: > On Fri, Aug 14, 1998 at 10:10:02AM +0930, Ivan Brawley wrote: > > > Question: What is wrong with using an unsigned long for time_t, > > instead of long (which is then assumed signed). > > man 3 time: > > Upon successful completion, time() returns the value of time. > Otherwise a value of ((time_t) -1) is returned and the > global variable errno is set to indicate the error. ... which will cause an unsigned-long (32-bit) time counter to fail precisely 1 second earlier than it would have otherwise, some time in the early twenty second century. Jim Shankland Flying Fox Computer Systems, Inc. To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-hackers" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?199808140500.WAA08017>