Skip site navigation (1)Skip section navigation (2)
Date:      Sun, 03 Jun 2001 08:42:44 +0200
From:      Poul-Henning Kamp <phk@critter.freebsd.dk>
To:        John Polstra <jdp@polstra.com>
Cc:        arch@FreeBSD.ORG, drosih@rpi.edu
Subject:   Re: time_t definition is wrong 
Message-ID:  <44610.991550564@critter>
In-Reply-To: Your message of "Sat, 02 Jun 2001 13:43:15 PDT." <200106022043.f52KhFh35078@vashon.polstra.com> 

next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
In message <200106022043.f52KhFh35078@vashon.polstra.com>, John Polstra writes:

>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".

That, in my mind, is actually a good argument for making it "int" so
that we can flush out those places which don't use time_t well in
advance of the unaviodable change to >32 bits...

-- 
Poul-Henning Kamp       | UNIX since Zilog Zeus 3.20
phk@FreeBSD.ORG         | TCP/IP since RFC 956
FreeBSD committer       | BSD since 4.3-tahoe    
Never attribute to malice what can adequately be explained by incompetence.

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?44610.991550564>