Date: Tue, 30 Oct 2001 11:20:11 -0800 (PST) From: Julian Elischer <julian@elischer.org> To: Brad Huntting <huntting@hunkular.glarp.com> Cc: Peter Wemm <peter@wemm.org>, Bruce Evans <bde@zeta.org.au>, Garance A Drosihn <drosih@rpi.edu>, Nate Williams <nate@yogotech.com>, arch@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: 64 bit times revisited.. Message-ID: <Pine.BSF.4.21.0110301119550.26174-100000@InterJet.elischer.org> In-Reply-To: <200110301833.f9UIXMZ41710@hunkular.glarp.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
can you give an example? On Tue, 30 Oct 2001, Brad Huntting wrote: > > > I see not reason that the timestamps should be signed.. > > Arithmatic on timestamps will break if time_t is changed to unsigned. > > > brad > 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?Pine.BSF.4.21.0110301119550.26174-100000>