Date: Wed, 6 Jun 2001 18:40:29 -0700 From: "David O'Brien" <obrien@FreeBSD.ORG> To: Matt Dillon <dillon@earth.backplane.com> Cc: Lyndon Nerenberg <lyndon@orthanc.ab.ca>, David Wolfskill <david@catwhisker.org>, arch@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: time_t definition is worng Message-ID: <20010606184029.B45892@dragon.nuxi.com> In-Reply-To: <200106050206.f5526so34511@earth.backplane.com>; from dillon@earth.backplane.com on Mon, Jun 04, 2001 at 07:06:54PM -0700 References: <20010602124732.F31257@dragon.nuxi.com> <200106041851.f54IpR533116@orthanc.ab.ca> <20010604190032.A45775@dragon.nuxi.com> <200106050206.f5526so34511@earth.backplane.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Mon, Jun 04, 2001 at 07:06:54PM -0700, Matt Dillon wrote: > But, you know, your argument works both ways. If long vs int aren't > different from each other from your point of view, then why the hell > did you change the long to an int on IA32 in the first place? I just > don't buy it, David. It's obviously important to you so you can hardly > refute someone else's argument by reversing yourself. I am not reversing myself. My position is (1) FreeBSD uses 32-bit time_t everywhere, (2) a consistent spelling of that 32-bit object. How is what I said reversing myself? The email I replied to also said time_t should be 32-bits, but should be spelled `long' since that is the only way to get a 32-bit type on a 16-bit machine. Since FreeBSD will never run on a 16-bit machine, this is not something we need to consern ourselves with. -- -- David (obrien@FreeBSD.org) 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?20010606184029.B45892>