Date: Sat, 2 Jun 2001 13:43:15 -0700 (PDT) From: John Polstra <jdp@polstra.com> To: arch@freebsd.org Cc: drosih@rpi.edu Subject: Re: time_t definition is wrong Message-ID: <200106022043.f52KhFh35078@vashon.polstra.com> In-Reply-To: <p05100e0fb73ee9d458f7@[128.113.24.47]> References: <200106012318.f51NI8w38590@bunrab.catwhisker.org> <20010602085237.A73968@dragon.nuxi.com> <200106021739.f52Hd9V03943@earth.backplane.com> <p05100e0fb73ee9d458f7@[128.113.24.47]>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
In article <p05100e0fb73ee9d458f7@[128.113.24.47]>, Garance A Drosihn <drosih@rpi.edu> wrote: > Still, it seems to me that a topic like this must come up in > discussions by the standards bodies. SingleUnixSpec seems to have > nothing useful to say about time_t, but maybe the latest draft of > Posix does. Actually the type of time_t was addressed by the original version of the ANSI/ISO C standard. The only requirement is that it be an "arithmetic type capable of representing times." That means it could be a signed or unsigned integer type or a floating point type, but not a pointer, struct, union, or function (duh). I'd prefer to keep it as "long" at least on the i386, because that's what the type was for years before ANSI renamed it to "time_t". John -- John Polstra jdp@polstra.com John D. Polstra & Co., Inc. Seattle, Washington USA "Disappointment is a good sign of basic intelligence." -- Chögyam Trungpa To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-arch" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?200106022043.f52KhFh35078>