Date: Wed, 16 Jan 2013 13:32:14 -0800 From: "Thomas D. Dean" <tomdean@speakeasy.org> Cc: questions@freebsd.org Subject: Re: time_t definition Message-ID: <50F71C5E.9040207@speakeasy.org> In-Reply-To: <201301161841.r0GIfgWS054810@mail.r-bonomi.com> References: <201301161841.r0GIfgWS054810@mail.r-bonomi.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On 01/16/13 10:41, Robert Bonomi wrote: > *precisely* and the format string had "%ld". > this IS a type mismatch, if a 'long' is a 64-bit value. The original code was compiled on a 32-bit machine for a 32-bit target. I tried %d, %ld, and %lld with the same result. > > FALSE. Calculation is OK. I/O format conversion is problematic. In the simple example I posted, gcc did not complain of a format mismatch. But, in the case of time_t gcc does complain of a format mismatch. Both cases had the same number of typedef levels to get to a basic type and used the same compile command. Should have the same result... I am attempting to understand the difference. Tom Dean
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?50F71C5E.9040207>