From owner-freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG Fri Mar 19 12:36:17 2004 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-current@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id B0F0A16A4CE for ; Fri, 19 Mar 2004 12:36:17 -0800 (PST) Received: from critter.freebsd.dk (critter.freebsd.dk [212.242.86.163]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id DDE9A43D39 for ; Fri, 19 Mar 2004 12:36:16 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from phk@phk.freebsd.dk) Received: from critter.freebsd.dk (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by critter.freebsd.dk (8.12.11/8.12.11) with ESMTP id i2JKaBov045454; Fri, 19 Mar 2004 21:36:12 +0100 (CET) (envelope-from phk@phk.freebsd.dk) To: Diomidis Spinellis From: "Poul-Henning Kamp" In-Reply-To: Your message of "Fri, 19 Mar 2004 22:01:34 +0200." <405B519E.4060501@aueb.gr> Date: Fri, 19 Mar 2004 21:36:11 +0100 Message-ID: <45453.1079728571@critter.freebsd.dk> cc: freebsd-current@freebsd.org cc: Garance A Drosihn Subject: Re: HEADS UP! MAJOR change to FreeBSD/sparc64 X-BeenThere: freebsd-current@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.1 Precedence: list List-Id: Discussions about the use of FreeBSD-current List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 19 Mar 2004 20:36:17 -0000 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.