Date: Sun, 16 Nov 2003 07:00:57 -0600 From: "Jacques A. Vidrine" <nectar@FreeBSD.org> To: Bruce Evans <bde@zeta.org.au>, Terry Lambert <tlambert2@mindspring.com>, freebsd-arch@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: __TIME_MIN/__TIME_MAX Message-ID: <20031116130057.GA56160@madman.celabo.org> In-Reply-To: <20031116125230.GA56115@madman.celabo.org> References: <20031114194119.GA94198@madman.celabo.org> <3FB6AA8F.37ED6D50@mindspring.com> <20031116102010.GA53282@madman.celabo.org> <20031116111212.GA55844@madman.celabo.org> <20031116231838.X1400@gamplex.bde.org> <20031116125230.GA56115@madman.celabo.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Sun, Nov 16, 2003 at 06:52:30AM -0600, Jacques A. Vidrine wrote: > On Sun, Nov 16, 2003 at 11:36:41PM +1100, Bruce Evans wrote: > > Actually, it's implementation-defined if time_t is integral (doesn't > > matter if it is signed or unsigned) (and the value is not representable). > > It's only undefined if time_t is a floating type. > > Are you certain? I'll have to double-check. I thought that if a type > was signed, then attempting to assign an out-of-range value was > undefined (similar to overflow with signed types). I should know better than to question whether you are certain :-) I think I have failed to differentiate between `implementation-defined' and `undefined'. I'd like to avoid both `implementation-defined' and `undefined' behavior. Cheers, -- Jacques Vidrine NTT/Verio SME FreeBSD UNIX Heimdal nectar@celabo.org jvidrine@verio.net nectar@freebsd.org nectar@kth.se
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20031116130057.GA56160>