From owner-freebsd-arch Fri Oct 26 19:10:14 2001 Delivered-To: freebsd-arch@freebsd.org Received: from mass.dis.org (mass.dis.org [216.240.45.41]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id AA12637B405 for ; Fri, 26 Oct 2001 19:10:10 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mass.dis.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mass.dis.org (8.11.6/8.11.3) with ESMTP id f9R2Mtv06821; Fri, 26 Oct 2001 19:22:55 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from msmith@mass.dis.org) Message-Id: <200110270222.f9R2Mtv06821@mass.dis.org> To: Dag-Erling Smorgrav Cc: arch@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: 64 bit times revisited.. In-Reply-To: Message from Dag-Erling Smorgrav of "27 Oct 2001 03:49:15 +0200." Date: Fri, 26 Oct 2001 19:22:55 -0700 From: Mike Smith Sender: owner-freebsd-arch@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk List-ID: List-Archive: (Web Archive) List-Help: (List Instructions) List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG > Mike Smith writes: > > > :These programs should *not* be trying to use these functions. These functions > > > :are meant for manipulating time_t, which is a representation of "now". > > > > > > Who says? > > This is the definition of time_t. > > Chapter and verse, please. Not just a repetition of what somebody > else says may or may not be in C90. I'm not pointing to any standard; I'm pointing to the fundamental assumptions that underly the use and implementation of the seconds-from-epoch model. You're off the topic here though. To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-arch" in the body of the message