Date: Fri, 01 Jun 2001 18:34:43 -0400 From: "Brandon S. Allbery KF8NH" <allbery@ece.cmu.edu> To: Thomas David Rivers <rivers@dignus.com>, dillon@earth.backplane.com, dmitry@ssimicro.com Cc: freebsd-stable@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: Re[4]: time_t definition is worng Message-ID: <25160000.991434881@vpn5.ece.cmu.edu> In-Reply-To: <200106012231.SAA86897@lakes.dignus.com> References: <200106012231.SAA86897@lakes.dignus.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Friday, June 01, 2001 18:31:34 -0400, Thomas David Rivers <rivers@dignus.com> wrote: +----- | So - I believe the weight of consensus is that time_t is | 64-bits on 64-bit machines, and 32-bits on 32-bit machines. | And, thus, for FreeBSD, should probably remain a long (IMHO.) +--->8 I've been leaning toward Matt Dillon's side of the debate, but I've just discovered a confounding datum: xiphoid:205 Z$ grep time_t /usr/include/sys/*.h | grep typedef /usr/include/sys/localedef.h:typedef struct _LC_time_t _LC_time_t; /usr/include/sys/types.h:typedef int time_t; xiphoid:206 Z$ uname -a OSF1 xiphoid V4.0 878 alpha alpha Something tells me this trumps the other arguments. (Sigh. Another reason for me to hate DECpaq.) -- brandon s. allbery [os/2][linux][solaris][japh] allbery@kf8nh.apk.net system administrator [WAY too many hats] allbery@ece.cmu.edu electrical and computer engineering KF8NH carnegie mellon university ["better check the oblivious first" -ke6sls] 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?25160000.991434881>