Date: Fri, 26 Oct 2001 22:51:58 -0400 From: Mike Barcroft <mike@FreeBSD.ORG> To: Mike Smith <msmith@FreeBSD.ORG> Cc: Matthew Dillon <dillon@apollo.backplane.com>, arch@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: 64 bit times revisited.. Message-ID: <20011026225158.C2283@coffee.q9media.com> In-Reply-To: <20011026215256.A2283@coffee.q9media.com>; from mike@FreeBSD.ORG on Fri, Oct 26, 2001 at 09:52:56PM -0400 References: <dillon@apollo.backplane.com> <200110270109.f9R19uv06023@mass.dis.org> <20011026215256.A2283@coffee.q9media.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Mike Barcroft <mike@FreeBSD.ORG> writes: > Mike Smith <msmith@FreeBSD.ORG> writes: > > I'll say it again, then. > > > > These programs should *not* be trying to use these functions. These functions > > are meant for manipulating time_t, which is a representation of "now". > > C99 defines clock_t and time_t as "arithmetic types capable of > representing times". I can't find any reference in POSIX or C99 that > time_t or its associated functions only deal with time as "now". > Could you please reference the source of this information. I discussed this with Mike on IRC, and his argument was geared more towards common usages of time_t rather than what the standards define them to be. POSIX and C99 are actually quite vague on the subject. Best regards, Mike Barcroft 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?20011026225158.C2283>