Date: Sat, 27 Oct 2001 09:55:33 -0700 (PDT) From: Matthew Dillon <dillon@apollo.backplane.com> To: John Baldwin <jhb@FreeBSD.ORG> Cc: arch@FreeBSD.ORG, des@ofug.org, Garrett Wollman <wollman@khavrinen.lcs.mit.edu> Subject: Re: 64 bit times revisited.. Message-ID: <200110271655.f9RGtX947498@apollo.backplane.com> References: <XFMail.011027084545.jhb@FreeBSD.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
: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 <jhb@FreeBSD.org> -- 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 <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?200110271655.f9RGtX947498>