Date: Mon, 4 Jun 2001 02:33:21 +1000 (EST) From: Bruce Evans <bde@zeta.org.au> To: Poul-Henning Kamp <phk@critter.freebsd.dk> Cc: obrien@FreeBSD.ORG, Matt Dillon <dillon@earth.backplane.com>, David Wolfskill <david@catwhisker.org>, arch@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: time_t definition is worng Message-ID: <Pine.BSF.4.21.0106040228410.50242-100000@besplex.bde.org> In-Reply-To: <Pine.BSF.4.21.0106040213160.50121-100000@besplex.bde.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Mon, 4 Jun 2001, I wrote:
> On Sat, 2 Jun 2001, Poul-Henning Kamp wrote:
>
> > In message <20010602124732.F31257@dragon.nuxi.com>, "David O'Brien" writes:
> > Uhm, time_t must be signed and at least 32 bits.
> ...
> In theory, it can be any signed arithmetic type from signed char to
XXXXXX
Oops. I should have said that it can be _any_ arithmetic type. (It
can also have any representation in C90 although not in POSIX (POSIX
requires it to have a particular broken representation that can't handle
leap seconds).
> > >I am more than willing to define time_t as `long long' so it is 64-bits
> > >across the board.
> >
> > We'll have to do this before 2038 anyway...
>
> You mean "before 2106". uint32_t can represent times between 1970
> and 2106. If you want to represent times much before 1970, then time_t
> is already inadequate.
Here I use the fact that it can be unsigned.
Bruce
To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org
with "unsubscribe freebsd-arch" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?Pine.BSF.4.21.0106040228410.50242-100000>