Date: Sun, 3 Jun 2001 01:16:21 -0700 From: "David O'Brien" <obrien@freebsd.org> To: John Polstra <jdp@polstra.com> Cc: arch@freebsd.org, drosih@rpi.edu Subject: Re: time_t definition is wrong Message-ID: <20010603011621.A88949@dragon.nuxi.com> In-Reply-To: <200106022043.f52KhFh35078@vashon.polstra.com>; from jdp@polstra.com on Sat, Jun 02, 2001 at 01:43:15PM -0700 References: <200106012318.f51NI8w38590@bunrab.catwhisker.org> <20010602085237.A73968@dragon.nuxi.com> <200106021739.f52Hd9V03943@earth.backplane.com> <p05100e0fb73ee9d458f7@[128.113.24.47]> <200106022043.f52KhFh35078@vashon.polstra.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Sat, Jun 02, 2001 at 01:43:15PM -0700, John Polstra wrote: > I'd prefer to keep it as "long" at least on the i386, because that's > what the type was for years before ANSI renamed it to "time_t". We will have to special case all of our code that uses time_t and printf() since our 64-bit types will be "%d", not "%ld", and we'll have to hope all the i386 users remember that when they change things in /usr/src/. I still think it is better to use a consistent time_t definition (and printf format specifier) across all FreeBSD platforms. But if the wind is really swaying that way... I'll concede. -- -- 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?20010603011621.A88949>