Date: Sat, 27 Oct 2001 15:20:48 -0700 (PDT) From: Matthew Dillon <dillon@apollo.backplane.com> To: Garrett Wollman <wollman@khavrinen.lcs.mit.edu> Cc: arch@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: time_t not to change size on x86 Message-ID: <200110272220.f9RMKmH64657@apollo.backplane.com> References: <20011027070109.D02E9380A@overcee.netplex.com.au> <200110272007.f9RK7NG88372@khavrinen.lcs.mit.edu> <200110272029.f9RKTIi56468@apollo.backplane.com> <200110272049.f9RKn9K88676@khavrinen.lcs.mit.edu> <200110272056.f9RKuiZ64324@apollo.backplane.com> <200110272110.f9RLAeW91039@khavrinen.lcs.mit.edu>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
:
:<<On Sat, 27 Oct 2001 13:56:44 -0700 (PDT), Matthew Dillon <dillon@apollo.backplane.com> said:
:
:> We are still waiting to see what both C90 and C99 say.
:
:No, you are not. You have already seen what C90 says: the committee
:responses to defect reports are the official interpretations of the
:Standard. The set of types defined in C90 is exhaustive;
:implementations are not permitted to extend it in a way which would be
:visible to a strictly conforming application.
:
:-GAWollman
I already responded to the C90 stuff you posted. Your reasoning
and the elements you posted were extremely weak arguments, frankly.
I responded with excerpts from the defect list for C99's which I think
makes it quite clear that people consider C90 broken. So frankly, Garrett,
I don't really give a damn what a ten-year old standard says. 64 bit integer
types on 32 bit platforms are totally acceptable today.
-Matt
Matthew Dillon
<dillon@backplane.com>
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?200110272220.f9RMKmH64657>