Date: Fri, 14 Aug 1998 13:59:19 +0930 From: Greg Lehey <grog@lemis.com> To: Matthew Hunt <mph@pobox.com>, Ivan Brawley <brawley@camtech.com.au>, hackers@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: 64-bit time_t Message-ID: <19980814135919.U1921@freebie.lemis.com> In-Reply-To: <19980814000605.A25012@astro.psu.edu>; from Matthew Hunt on Fri, Aug 14, 1998 at 12:06:05AM -0400 References: <199808131721.KAA00864@antipodes.cdrom.com> <199808140040.KAA14156@mad.ct> <19980814000605.A25012@astro.psu.edu>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Friday, 14 August 1998 at 0:06:05 -0400, Matthew Hunt wrote: > On Fri, Aug 14, 1998 at 10:10:02AM +0930, Ivan Brawley wrote: > >> Question: What is wrong with using an unsigned long for time_t, instead of >> long (which is then assumed signed). > > man 3 time: > > Upon successful completion, time() returns the value of time. Otherwise > a value of ((time_t) -1) is returned and the global variable errno is set > to indicate the error. More to the point, time_t *can* be used to represent BE (Before Epoch) dates. Make it unsigned and you break that. Greg -- See complete headers for address, home page and phone numbers finger grog@lemis.com for PGP public key To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-hackers" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?19980814135919.U1921>