Date: Mon, 04 Jun 2001 12:51:27 -0600 From: Lyndon Nerenberg <lyndon@orthanc.ab.ca> To: obrien@FreeBSD.ORG Cc: Matt Dillon <dillon@earth.backplane.com>, David Wolfskill <david@catwhisker.org>, arch@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: time_t definition is worng Message-ID: <200106041851.f54IpR533116@orthanc.ab.ca> In-Reply-To: Your message of "Sat, 02 Jun 2001 12:47:32 PDT." <20010602124732.F31257@dragon.nuxi.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
>>>>> "David" == David O'Brien <obrien@FreeBSD.ORG> writes:
David> time_t is 32-bits without
David> question.
Upon what do you base that assertion?
The return value from time() is long because returning an int on a 16
bit machine wouldn't make sense. I don't think you can extend that out
to say that making it long meant making it exactly 32 bits. The intent
was to use a type at least as big as an int, but preferably larger,
which is the exact definition of a long. Maximizing the size of
time()'s return value gave the greatest useful range of times, and I
see no reason to change that now. (I don't see anything in the Seventh
Edition manual to indicate that time() should return exactly-32-bit
values.)
--lyndon
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?200106041851.f54IpR533116>