Date: Fri, 19 Mar 2004 21:36:11 +0100 From: "Poul-Henning Kamp" <phk@phk.freebsd.dk> To: Diomidis Spinellis <dds@aueb.gr> Cc: Garance A Drosihn <drosih@rpi.edu> Subject: Re: HEADS UP! MAJOR change to FreeBSD/sparc64 Message-ID: <45453.1079728571@critter.freebsd.dk> In-Reply-To: Your message of "Fri, 19 Mar 2004 22:01:34 %2B0200." <405B519E.4060501@aueb.gr>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
In message <405B519E.4060501@aueb.gr>, Diomidis Spinellis writes: >I could not find anything in my copy of C99, substantiating that. >Seconds are not mentioned in any of the sections 7.23.1 defining time_t, >7.23.2.3 defining mktime, and 7.23.2.4 defining time. Section 7.23.2.4 >specifically states that "the encoding of the value is unspecified", and >7.23.2.3 specifies that "mktime returns the specified calendar time >encoded as a value of type time_t". This is a very interesting discussion with many interesting aspects. I can barely wait until we get to discuss the theoretically very important question of how many angles can dance on a time_t, not to mention what they can dance in the resolution interval of it. Also I find very insteresting the meta question it is possible to define time_t as a type which is not able to represent the duration of a bikeshed discussion about the finer aspects of type of time_t. In the meantime time_t is a integer counting seconds since 00:00:00Z 1970-01-01 because anything else would be suicide by a thousand broken ports. If they survive that long, God forbid, even i386 and alpha will have 64bit time_t before it becomes really important. Can we get back to reality now ? -- Poul-Henning Kamp | UNIX since Zilog Zeus 3.20 phk@FreeBSD.ORG | TCP/IP since RFC 956 FreeBSD committer | BSD since 4.3-tahoe Never attribute to malice what can adequately be explained by incompetence.
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?45453.1079728571>