Date: Sun, 28 Oct 2001 10:10:09 -0800 From: Terry Lambert <tlambert2@mindspring.com> To: Garrett Wollman <wollman@khavrinen.lcs.mit.edu> Cc: drosih@rpi.edu, arch@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: time_t not to change size on x86, votes Message-ID: <3BDC4A01.B910ECCC@mindspring.com> References: <200110270636.f9R6aik43419@apollo.backplane.com> <20011027064343.03830380A@overcee.netplex.com.au> <20011027124149.A486@dhcp01.pn.xcllnt.net> <200110280242.f9S2gsX93100@khavrinen.lcs.mit.edu>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Garrett Wollman wrote: > > d) For all 32-bit platforms (PowerPC, i386), > > iff FreeBSD 5.0-release continues to be a 32-bit value, > > then it should be called 'long' instead of 'int'. > > 2 (I don't feel very strongly, but I am mildly opposed to doing this. > I believe, and have stated before, that it would be better to have > some platforms be different, precisely to flush out unwarranted > assumptions about the type underlying a time_t.) I agree, as long as it's not the x86 platform that different. FreeBSD has most of its effort concentrated on the x86, and so hobbling the Alpha or some other currently marginally supported platform to get this shakeout would be a bad idea. I suggested before being able to turn on the alignmnet bit on x86 to shakeout alignment bugs... -- Terry 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?3BDC4A01.B910ECCC>