Date: Sun, 28 Oct 2001 01:40:22 +1000 (EST) From: Bruce Evans <bde@zeta.org.au> To: John Baldwin <jhb@FreeBSD.ORG> Cc: Dag-Erling Smorgrav <des@ofug.org>, Mike Smith <msmith@FreeBSD.ORG>, Bakul Shah <bakul@bitblocks.com>, Poul-Henning Kamp <phk@critter.freebsd.dk>, Peter Wemm <peter@wemm.org>, <arch@FreeBSD.ORG>, Matthew Dillon <dillon@apollo.backplane.com> Subject: Re: 64 bit times revisited.. Message-ID: <20011028013151.Q96378-100000@delplex.bde.org> In-Reply-To: <XFMail.011026182323.jhb@FreeBSD.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Fri, 26 Oct 2001, John Baldwin wrote: > On 27-Oct-01 John Baldwin wrote: > > You did read the e-mail from Garrett where either SUS or POSIX one requires > > time_t to fit in a long? I.e. sizeof(time_t) <= sizeof(long). This means > ... > My bad. C90 requires that time_t fit into a long according to Garrett. POSIX > requires it to be either an integer or floating point with the fractional part > zero according to his mail as well. C90 only requres that time_t is an arithmetic type (anything from signed char to long double). POSIX also specifies a (wrong) representation (one that ensures that leap seconds can't possibly work). Changing time_t to long double would be interesting. Bruce 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?20011028013151.Q96378-100000>