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>