From owner-freebsd-questions@FreeBSD.ORG  Wed Jan 16 21:32:12 2013
Return-Path: <owner-freebsd-questions@FreeBSD.ORG>
Delivered-To: questions@freebsd.org
Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.FreeBSD.org [8.8.178.115])
 by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id B4C4C253
 for <questions@freebsd.org>; Wed, 16 Jan 2013 21:32:12 +0000 (UTC)
 (envelope-from tomdean@speakeasy.org)
Received: from asbnvacz-mailrelay01.megapath.net
 (asbnvacz-mailrelay01.megapath.net [207.145.128.243])
 by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9087BF49
 for <questions@freebsd.org>; Wed, 16 Jan 2013 21:32:12 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from mail8.sea5.speakeasy.net (mail8.sea5.speakeasy.net
 [69.17.117.53])
 by asbnvacz-mailrelay01.megapath.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 11F86A714B7
 for <questions@freebsd.org>; Wed, 16 Jan 2013 16:32:06 -0500 (EST)
Received: (qmail 1692 invoked from network); 16 Jan 2013 21:32:05 -0000
Received: by simscan 1.4.0 ppid: 18242, pid: 12981, t: 0.4450s
 scanners: clamav: 0.88.2/m:52/d:13495 spam: 3.0.4
Received: from unknown (HELO [192.168.2.7]) (tomdean@[24.113.104.91])
 (envelope-sender <tomdean@speakeasy.org>)
 by mail8.sea5.speakeasy.net (qmail-ldap-1.03) with SMTP
 for <questions@freebsd.org>; 16 Jan 2013 21:32:05 -0000
Message-ID: <50F71C5E.9040207@speakeasy.org>
Date: Wed, 16 Jan 2013 13:32:14 -0800
From: "Thomas D. Dean" <tomdean@speakeasy.org>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64;
 rv:17.0) Gecko/17.0 Thunderbird/17.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
Subject: Re: time_t definition
References: <201301161841.r0GIfgWS054810@mail.r-bonomi.com>
In-Reply-To: <201301161841.r0GIfgWS054810@mail.r-bonomi.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.0.4 (2005-06-05) on mail8.sea5
X-Spam-Level: 
X-Spam-Status: No, score=0.8 required=8.0 tests=RATWARE_GECKO_BUILD 
 autolearn=disabled version=3.0.4
Cc: questions@freebsd.org
X-BeenThere: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.14
Precedence: list
List-Id: User questions <freebsd-questions.freebsd.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/options/freebsd-questions>, 
 <mailto:freebsd-questions-request@freebsd.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/freebsd-questions>
List-Post: <mailto:freebsd-questions@freebsd.org>
List-Help: <mailto:freebsd-questions-request@freebsd.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions>, 
 <mailto:freebsd-questions-request@freebsd.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 16 Jan 2013 21:32:12 -0000

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