Date: Wed, 6 Jun 2001 18:47:53 -0700 From: "David O'Brien" <obrien@FreeBSD.org> To: Garrett Wollman <wollman@khavrinen.lcs.mit.edu> Cc: arch@FreeBSD.org, freebsd-standards@bostonradio.org Subject: Re: time_t definition is wrong Message-ID: <20010606184753.C45892@dragon.nuxi.com> In-Reply-To: <200106041547.LAA76688@khavrinen.lcs.mit.edu>; from wollman@khavrinen.lcs.mit.edu on Mon, Jun 04, 2001 at 11:47:18AM -0400 References: <200106020823.f528N5O98998@earth.backplane.com> <20010602085237.A73968@dragon.nuxi.com> <200106021739.f52Hd9V03943@earth.backplane.com> <p05100e0fb73ee9d458f7@[128.113.24.47]> <20010602124907.G31257@dragon.nuxi.com> <200106022005.f52K5FR04823@earth.backplane.com> <20010602131404.M31257@dragon.nuxi.com> <200106022040.f52KeSJ05088@earth.backplane.com> <20010602142011.N31257@dragon.nuxi.com> <200106041547.LAA76688@khavrinen.lcs.mit.edu>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Mon, Jun 04, 2001 at 11:47:18AM -0400, Garrett Wollman wrote: > > time_t needs to be consistent across all FreeBSD platforms. > > No, it doesn't. > > > Otherwise we get in consistent behavior across our platforms. > > Which will always be the case given that some platforms are ILP32 and > some are LP64. s/time_t/size_t/g and see where that argument gets > you. With size_t you want to be able to hold the largest number you can. It is used for lengths, etc.. where you don't want wrap around. In time_t's case we already know we will get a wrap around, and in my mind all our plaforms should do it at the same point. -- -- 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?20010606184753.C45892>