Date: Fri, 26 Oct 2001 19:47:34 -0700 (PDT) From: Matthew Dillon <dillon@apollo.backplane.com> To: Dag-Erling Smorgrav <des@ofug.org> Cc: John Baldwin <jhb@FreeBSD.ORG>, Mike Smith <msmith@FreeBSD.ORG>, Bakul Shah <bakul@bitblocks.com>, Poul-Henning Kamp <phk@critter.freebsd.dk>, Peter Wemm <peter@wemm.org>, arch@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: 64 bit times revisited.. Message-ID: <200110270247.f9R2lYT42760@apollo.backplane.com> References: <XFMail.011026182323.jhb@FreeBSD.org> <xzp1yjprgzu.fsf@flood.ping.uio.no>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
:John Baldwin <jhb@FreeBSD.org> writes:
:> My bad. C90 requires that time_t fit into a long according to
:> Garrett.
:
:Maybe it does. Maybe it doesn't. Chapter and verse, please.
:
:All I have is the final draft of C99, and all it says about the width
:of time_t is that it is an arithmetic type "capable of representing
:times" (7.23.1). There is no mention at all of the word "long" in
:section 7.23.
:
:DES
:--
:Dag-Erling Smorgrav - des@ofug.org
.... so, anybody have the final word on this? Anybody have the
official ('can't get on the web for free because the ISO people are
putzes') standard?
-Matt
Matthew Dillon
<dillon@backplane.com>
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?200110270247.f9R2lYT42760>