Date: Sun, 20 Jan 2013 21:47:28 -0800 From: Michael Sierchio <kudzu@tenebras.com> To: Garance A Drosehn <gad@freebsd.org> Cc: "Thomas D. Dean" <tomdean@speakeasy.org>, "questions@FreeBSD.org" <questions@freebsd.org> Subject: Re: time_t definition Message-ID: <CAHu1Y72w0i3DB%2BveA92ErCE8ehP6U-MK7txYHgXxixBhYEzYtg@mail.gmail.com> In-Reply-To: <50FCBEFB.3010102@FreeBSD.org> References: <50F5A189.7000701@speakeasy.org> <20130116120015.3b8d0db4@mr129166> <50F6EDFB.70501@speakeasy.org> <50FCBEFB.3010102@FreeBSD.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Sun, Jan 20, 2013 at 8:07 PM, Garance A Drosehn <gad@freebsd.org> wrote: > Yes, this means that the only reliable way to printf a time_t is > to use a cast. That has been true for at least a decade. It may > be true that you happened to avoid this issue before, but the only > *RELIABLE* platform-independent way to print time_t's is via a cast. Especially for variadic functions like printf. You can reasonably assume that arithmetic expressions will automagically promote a type to the proper size, but you (Garance) ably reinforce what we've been trying to convey about this particular example. Well, Brahma said, even after ten thousand explanations, a fool is no wiser, but an intelligent man requires only two thousand five hundred. - The Mah=C4=81bh=C4=81rata.
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?CAHu1Y72w0i3DB%2BveA92ErCE8ehP6U-MK7txYHgXxixBhYEzYtg>