Skip site navigation (1)Skip section navigation (2)
Date:      Sat, 27 Oct 2001 17:10:40 -0400 (EDT)
From:      Garrett Wollman <wollman@khavrinen.lcs.mit.edu>
To:        Matthew Dillon <dillon@apollo.backplane.com>
Cc:        arch@FreeBSD.org
Subject:   Re: time_t not to change size on x86 
Message-ID:  <200110272110.f9RLAeW91039@khavrinen.lcs.mit.edu>
In-Reply-To: <200110272056.f9RKuiZ64324@apollo.backplane.com>
References:  <20011027070109.D02E9380A@overcee.netplex.com.au> <200110272007.f9RK7NG88372@khavrinen.lcs.mit.edu> <200110272029.f9RKTIi56468@apollo.backplane.com> <200110272049.f9RKn9K88676@khavrinen.lcs.mit.edu> <200110272056.f9RKuiZ64324@apollo.backplane.com>

next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
<<On Sat, 27 Oct 2001 13:56:44 -0700 (PDT), Matthew Dillon <dillon@apollo.backplane.com> said:

>     We are still waiting to see what both C90 and C99 say.

No, you are not.  You have already seen what C90 says: the committee
responses to defect reports are the official interpretations of the
Standard.  The set of types defined in C90 is exhaustive;
implementations are not permitted to extend it in a way which would be
visible to a strictly conforming application.

-GAWollman


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?200110272110.f9RLAeW91039>