From owner-freebsd-arch Sat Oct 27 9:55:35 2001 Delivered-To: freebsd-arch@freebsd.org Received: from apollo.backplane.com (apollo.backplane.com [216.240.41.2]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1D67237B401; Sat, 27 Oct 2001 09:55:34 -0700 (PDT) Received: (from dillon@localhost) by apollo.backplane.com (8.11.6/8.9.1) id f9RGtX947498; Sat, 27 Oct 2001 09:55:33 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from dillon) Date: Sat, 27 Oct 2001 09:55:33 -0700 (PDT) From: Matthew Dillon Message-Id: <200110271655.f9RGtX947498@apollo.backplane.com> To: John Baldwin Cc: arch@FreeBSD.ORG, des@ofug.org, Garrett Wollman Subject: Re: 64 bit times revisited.. References: 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 :Matt, just because C99 has changed doesn't mean we have to break C90. This is :the difference between your baseline that you support vs. the newest stuff you :... :John Baldwin -- http://www.FreeBSD.org/~jhb/ :PGP Key: http://www.baldwin.cx/~john/pgpkey.asc :"Power Users Use the Power to Serve!" - http://www.FreeBSD.org/ Who says we are breaking C90? So far nobody has posted anything from C90 that prevents us from changing time_t to a 64 bit int. Garrett's defect list posting is on very thin ice, it would take a whole lot of twisting to construe it as meaning that long long can't be used to define time_t. C90 is also over 10 years old. If these standards are supposed to reflect what people are doing with C, then obviously we want to use the latest one. -Matt Matthew Dillon To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-arch" in the body of the message