Date: Fri, 1 Jun 2001 16:00:31 -0700 (PDT) From: Matt Dillon <dillon@earth.backplane.com> To: Nick Sayer <nsayer@quack.kfu.com> Cc: "Brandon S. Allbery KF8NH" <allbery@ece.cmu.edu>, Thomas David Rivers <rivers@dignus.com>, dmitry@ssimicro.com, freebsd-stable@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: time_t definition is worng Message-ID: <200106012300.f51N0VT90830@earth.backplane.com> References: <200106012231.SAA86897@lakes.dignus.com> <25160000.991434881@vpn5.ece.cmu.edu> <3B181C02.50009@quack.kfu.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
:
:I never understood why it isn't at _least_ made unsigned. This at least
:puts off the 2038 issue until 2106. I may live to see the former, but
:certainly not the latter. :-)
Historically people compared time stamps by subtracting one from
another. If they are unsigned, that breaks horribly (you never get
a negative result). Internally there is nothing preventing us from
treating time_t as an unsigned, er, long.
-Matt
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?200106012300.f51N0VT90830>