From owner-freebsd-arch Mon Jun 4 19: 0:45 2001 Delivered-To: freebsd-arch@freebsd.org Received: from relay.nuxi.com (nuxi.cs.ucdavis.edu [169.237.7.38]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5E27037B401 for ; Mon, 4 Jun 2001 19:00:42 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from obrien@nuxi.ucdavis.edu) Received: from dragon.nuxi.com (root@trang.muxi.com [206.40.252.115] (may be forged)) by relay.nuxi.com (8.11.2/8.11.2) with ESMTP id f5520el97752; Mon, 4 Jun 2001 19:00:41 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from obrien@NUXI.com) Received: (from obrien@localhost) by dragon.nuxi.com (8.11.3/8.11.1) id f5520W845918; Mon, 4 Jun 2001 19:00:32 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from obrien) Date: Mon, 4 Jun 2001 19:00:32 -0700 From: "David O'Brien" To: Lyndon Nerenberg Cc: Matt Dillon , David Wolfskill , arch@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: time_t definition is worng Message-ID: <20010604190032.A45775@dragon.nuxi.com> Reply-To: obrien@FreeBSD.ORG References: <20010602124732.F31257@dragon.nuxi.com> <200106041851.f54IpR533116@orthanc.ab.ca> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline User-Agent: Mutt/1.2.5i In-Reply-To: <200106041851.f54IpR533116@orthanc.ab.ca>; from lyndon@orthanc.ab.ca on Mon, Jun 04, 2001 at 12:51:27PM -0600 X-Operating-System: FreeBSD 5.0-CURRENT Organization: The NUXI BSD group X-Pgp-Rsa-Fingerprint: B7 4D 3E E9 11 39 5F A3 90 76 5D 69 58 D9 98 7A X-Pgp-Rsa-Keyid: 1024/34F9F9D5 Sender: owner-freebsd-arch@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk List-ID: List-Archive: (Web Archive) List-Help: (List Instructions) List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG On Mon, Jun 04, 2001 at 12:51:27PM -0600, Lyndon Nerenberg wrote: > > David> time_t is 32-bits without > David> question. > > Upon what do you base that assertion? Virtually every other Unix in existance uses a 32-bit time_t. > The return value from time() is long because returning an int on a 16 > bit machine wouldn't make sense. You are now arguing the *spelling* of the 32-bit type. What does that have to do with it being a 32-bit type? > 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 value consistenacy across our platforms. > (I don't see anything in the Seventh Edition manual to indicate that > time() should return exactly-32-bit values.) There are a *LOT* of things not explicity documented in Seventh Edition yet are followed to this day. -- -- David (obrien@FreeBSD.org) To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-arch" in the body of the message