Date: Fri, 1 Jun 2001 14:39:55 -0600 From: "Dmitry V. Dvoinikov" <dmitry@ssimicro.com> To: Matt Dillon <dillon@earth.backplane.com> Cc: freebsd-stable@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re[4]: time_t definition is worng Message-ID: <14419530753.20010601143955@ssimicro.com> In-Reply-To: <200106011931.f51JVjx87071@earth.backplane.com> References: <20010601135122.A66182@sunbay.com> <Pine.BSF.4.33_heb2.09.0106011437410.43119-100000@active.ath.cx> <20010601044526.A30739@xor.obsecurity.org> <200106011839.f51Idbj86306@earth.backplane.com> <149413595408.20010601130059@ssimicro.com> <200106011931.f51JVjx87071@earth.backplane.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
> Matt Dillon: > The data *ISN'T* SUPPOSED TO BE BINARY COMPATIBLE! Correct. But then there is no difference at all. You may typedef double time_t; :) And I can easily see where it can lead to bugs, pretty difficult to find. Therefore I'm still on the typedef int time_t; side. Best regards, Dmitry Dvoinikov mailto:dmitry@ssimicro.com Original message follows: > : :>> Matt Dillon: :>> time_t should remain 'long' on IA32 (even though sizeof(int) == :>> sizeof(long) on IA32), and it damn well should be 'long' on Alpha ... > : > :I believe you are wrong. If it's "long" on both i386 and Alpha, > :data will not be binary compatible. > The data *ISN'T* SUPPOSED TO BE BINARY COMPATIBLE! > -Matt > :In fact as far as I understand, the origin of this confusion > :is making sizeof(int) == sizeof(long) on i386, which is kind of a stretchy. > : > :Best regards, > :Dmitry Dvoinikov > :mailto:dmitry@ssimicro.com > To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org > with "unsubscribe freebsd-stable" in the body of the message To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-stable" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?14419530753.20010601143955>