Date: Fri, 14 Aug 1998 23:03:14 +0000 (GMT) From: Terry Lambert <tlambert@primenet.com> To: mph@pobox.com (Matthew Hunt) Cc: brawley@camtech.com.au, hackers@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: 64-bit time_t Message-ID: <199808142303.QAA23463@usr04.primenet.com> In-Reply-To: <19980814000605.A25012@astro.psu.edu> from "Matthew Hunt" at Aug 14, 98 00:06:05 am
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
> > Question: What is wrong with using an unsigned long for time_t, instead of > > long (which is then assumed signed). > > man 3 time: > > Upon successful completion, time() returns the value of time. Otherwise > a value of ((time_t) -1) is returned and the global variable errno is set > to indicate the error. See also: http://www.eunet.pt/ano2000/sun/sup_sun5.htm Negative values are (potentially) abused for dates back to December 13th, 1901. Terry Lambert terry@lambert.org --- Any opinions in this posting are my own and not those of my present or previous employers. To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-hackers" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?199808142303.QAA23463>