Date: Mon, 4 Jun 2001 19:06:54 -0700 (PDT) From: Matt Dillon <dillon@earth.backplane.com> To: "David O'Brien" <obrien@FreeBSD.ORG> Cc: Lyndon Nerenberg <lyndon@orthanc.ab.ca>, David Wolfskill <david@catwhisker.org>, arch@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: time_t definition is worng Message-ID: <200106050206.f5526so34511@earth.backplane.com> References: <20010602124732.F31257@dragon.nuxi.com> <200106041851.f54IpR533116@orthanc.ab.ca> <20010604190032.A45775@dragon.nuxi.com>
index | next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail
:
: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?
:...
:--
:-- David (obrien@FreeBSD.org)
Having written a C compiler, I can say with authority that there is a
big difference between 'int' and 'long' declarations, even if they
do wind up being the same size. The machine code may wind up the
same but there are serious ramifications involved in regards to porting
and maintaining the source code. So it does matter. Quite a lot.
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.
-Matt
To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org
with "unsubscribe freebsd-arch" in the body of the message
home |
help
Want to link to this message? Use this
URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?200106050206.f5526so34511>