Date: Mon, 4 Jun 2001 19:00:32 -0700 From: "David O'Brien" <obrien@FreeBSD.ORG> To: Lyndon Nerenberg <lyndon@orthanc.ab.ca> Cc: Matt Dillon <dillon@earth.backplane.com>, David Wolfskill <david@catwhisker.org>, arch@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: time_t definition is worng Message-ID: <20010604190032.A45775@dragon.nuxi.com> In-Reply-To: <200106041851.f54IpR533116@orthanc.ab.ca>; from lyndon@orthanc.ab.ca on Mon, Jun 04, 2001 at 12:51:27PM -0600 References: <20010602124732.F31257@dragon.nuxi.com> <200106041851.f54IpR533116@orthanc.ab.ca>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Mon, Jun 04, 2001 at 12:51:27PM -0600, Lyndon Nerenberg wrote: > > David> time_t is 32-bits without > David> question. > > Upon what do you base that assertion? Virtually every other Unix in existance uses a 32-bit time_t. > The return value from time() is long because returning an int on a 16 > bit machine wouldn't make sense. You are now arguing the *spelling* of the 32-bit type. What does that have to do with it being a 32-bit type? > Maximizing the size of time()'s return value gave the greatest useful > range of times, and I see no reason to change that now. I value consistenacy across our platforms. > (I don't see anything in the Seventh Edition manual to indicate that > time() should return exactly-32-bit values.) There are a *LOT* of things not explicity documented in Seventh Edition yet are followed to this day. -- -- David (obrien@FreeBSD.org) 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?20010604190032.A45775>