Date: Fri, 26 Oct 2001 18:46:52 -0700 From: Bill Fenner <fenner@research.att.com> To: wollman@khavrinen.lcs.mit.edu Cc: asmodai@wxs.nl, arch@freebsd.org Subject: Re: 64 bit times revisited.. Message-ID: <200110270146.SAA16181@windsor.research.att.com> References: <200110260006.f9Q05vQ05273@beastie.mckusick.com> <200110260047.f9Q0lsf16513@apollo.backplane.com> <p0510101ab7ff49f3b996@[128.113.24.47]> <200110262151.f9QLp1b75389@khavrinen.lcs.mit.edu> <200110262209.f9QM9on75561@khavrinen.lcs.mit.edu>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
>If we care about compatibility with ISO 9899:1990 (Standard C 1990 >edition), time_t is restricted to be no longer than `long'. I'll admit to only having subsets of C90, but both the subset of C90 that I have access to (in P.J. Plauger's "The Standard C Library") and the working draft of WG14/N794 J11/97-158 that I have from 1997 (which I think was a snapshot of what became C99) simply say (in section 7.16.1): The types declared [in <time.h>] are ... clock_t and time_t which are arithmetic types capable of representing times. Are you saying that C90 has an explicit requirement that time_t can't be longer than 'long', or simply that C90 didn't have any types longer than 'long'? Bill 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?200110270146.SAA16181>