Date: Fri, 21 Jan 2000 09:38:06 -0600 From: Jim King <king@sstar.com> To: Will Andrews <andrews@technologist.com>, Per Kristian Hove <perhov+abuse@math.ntnu.no> Cc: Marcin Cieslak <saper@system.pl>, freebsd-stable@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: Y2K wierdness?? Message-ID: <4.2.0.58.20000121093608.00a8b130@mail.sstar.com> In-Reply-To: <20000118193532.J457@argon.blackdawn.com> References: <Pine.GS4.4.21.0001181105270.18853-100000@martens.math.ntnu.no> <Pine.GSO.4.20.0001180856020.18019-100000@tricord.system.pl> <Pine.GS4.4.21.0001181105270.18853-100000@martens.math.ntnu.no>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
At 07:35 PM 1/18/2000 -0500, Will Andrews wrote: >On Tue, Jan 18, 2000 at 11:17:47AM +0100, Per Kristian Hove wrote: > > Yes, either DOS or UNIX epoch. This output is from a really old backup, so > > I don't remember on which OS version[*] it's been made, but it goes to > > show that it's always been this way. > >DOS epoch == UNIX epoch. At least, in my tests of my code that uses >time_t, they both start on January 1, 1970 at 00:00 UTC. > >I used CodeWarrior Pro 2 + GCC 2.95.2. YMMV. > >(Not like this really matters anyhow.. ;-) DOS epoch == UNIX epoch from the point of view of a C program using the C RTL, but DOS's "native" epoch is 1/1/1980, and that's how you have to interpret dates in msdosfs directory entries. Jim To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-stable" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?4.2.0.58.20000121093608.00a8b130>