From owner-freebsd-arch@FreeBSD.ORG  Sun Nov 16 04:36:48 2003
Return-Path: <owner-freebsd-arch@FreeBSD.ORG>
Delivered-To: freebsd-arch@freebsd.org
Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125])
	by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP
	id 31EF816A4CE; Sun, 16 Nov 2003 04:36:48 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mailman.zeta.org.au (mailman.zeta.org.au [203.26.10.16])
	by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP
	id 6C15343F93; Sun, 16 Nov 2003 04:36:46 -0800 (PST)
	(envelope-from bde@zeta.org.au)
Received: from gamplex.bde.org (katana.zip.com.au [61.8.7.246])
	by mailman.zeta.org.au (8.9.3p2/8.8.7) with ESMTP id XAA04395;
	Sun, 16 Nov 2003 23:36:42 +1100
Date: Sun, 16 Nov 2003 23:36:41 +1100 (EST)
From: Bruce Evans <bde@zeta.org.au>
X-X-Sender: bde@gamplex.bde.org
To: "Jacques A. Vidrine" <nectar@FreeBSD.org>
In-Reply-To: <20031116111212.GA55844@madman.celabo.org>
Message-ID: <20031116231838.X1400@gamplex.bde.org>
References: <20031114194119.GA94198@madman.celabo.org>
	<3FB6AA8F.37ED6D50@mindspring.com>
	<20031116111212.GA55844@madman.celabo.org>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
cc: freebsd-arch@FreeBSD.org
Subject: Re: __TIME_MIN/__TIME_MAX
X-BeenThere: freebsd-arch@freebsd.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.1
Precedence: list
List-Id: Discussion related to FreeBSD architecture
	<freebsd-arch.freebsd.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-arch>,
	<mailto:freebsd-arch-request@freebsd.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/freebsd-arch>
List-Post: <mailto:freebsd-arch@freebsd.org>
List-Help: <mailto:freebsd-arch-request@freebsd.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-arch>,
	<mailto:freebsd-arch-request@freebsd.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 16 Nov 2003 12:36:48 -0000

On Sun, 16 Nov 2003, Jacques A. Vidrine wrote:

> On Sun, Nov 16, 2003 at 04:20:10AM -0600, Jacques A. Vidrine wrote:
> >     /* How can this be implemented correctly? */
> >     int range_error(long n, time_t t)
> >     {
> > 	    return (long)(t = n) == n;
> >     }
>
> Hrmp.  Because time_t is probably signed, technically this can cause
> `undefined behavior' if the range of `long' is more than the range of
> `time_t' (e.g. on alpha). *sigh*

Actually, it's implementation-defined if time_t is integral (doesn't
matter if it is signed or unsigned) (and the value is not representable).
It's only undefined if time_t is a floating type.

> All I really want to do is correct a parsing bug and at the same time
> eliminate a warning so that I can set WARNS?=1 in libc before the code
> freeze.

You can safely assume that it won't change to floating before the code
freeze :-).

I think (t = n) would cause compiler warnings at higher WARNS levels
if time_t were unsigned.  `t == n' certainly would.
`(long)(time_t)n == n' could be used (this is like the above except it
doesn't use a temporary variable.  However, the cast to long breaks the
warning about the bug that if n is -1L and time_t is unsigned long, then
the comarison will succeed on 2's complement machines although time_t
cannot represent -1.

Bruce