Date: Mon, 4 Jun 2001 02:55:52 +1000 (EST) From: Bruce Evans <bde@zeta.org.au> To: Poul-Henning Kamp <phk@critter.freebsd.dk> Cc: John Polstra <jdp@polstra.com>, arch@FreeBSD.ORG, drosih@rpi.edu Subject: Re: time_t definition is wrong Message-ID: <Pine.BSF.4.21.0106040254020.50358-100000@besplex.bde.org> In-Reply-To: <44610.991550564@critter>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Sun, 3 Jun 2001, Poul-Henning Kamp wrote: > In message <200106022043.f52KhFh35078@vashon.polstra.com>, John Polstra writes: > > >I'd prefer to keep it as "long" at least on the i386, because that's > >what the type was for years before ANSI renamed it to "time_t". > > That, in my mind, is actually a good argument for making it "int" so > that we can flush out those places which don't use time_t well in > advance of the unaviodable change to >32 bits... This is the main reason that I changed it. However, I didn't intend the change to be committed anywhere except in -current. 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.4.21.0106040254020.50358-100000>