__TIME_MIN/__TIME_MAX

[Jacques A. Vidrine]

On Sun, Nov 16, 2003 at 11:36:41PM +1100, Bruce Evans wrote:
> Actually, it's implementation-defined if time_t is integral (doesn't
> matter if it is signed or unsigned) (and the value is not representable).
> It's only undefined if time_t is a floating type.

Are you certain?  I'll have to double-check.  I thought that if a type
was signed, then attempting to assign an out-of-range value was
undefined (similar to overflow with signed types).

> 
> > All I really want to do is correct a parsing bug and at the same time
> > eliminate a warning so that I can set WARNS?=1 in libc before the code
> > freeze.
> 
> You can safely assume that it won't change to floating before the code
> freeze :-).

Heh.  Until a few hours ago, I was pretty sure that no one would dare
make any changes to time_t this late in the game, but then the sparc64
time_t thread sprouted. :-)

> I think (t = n) would cause compiler warnings at higher WARNS levels
> if time_t were unsigned.  `t == n' certainly would.
> `(long)(time_t)n == n' could be used (this is like the above except it
> doesn't use a temporary variable.  However, the cast to long breaks the
> warning about the bug that if n is -1L and time_t is unsigned long, then
> the comarison will succeed on 2's complement machines although time_t
> cannot represent -1.

The actual warning was of the `comparison always true' variety.
Annoying, but it did lead me to see that there was a (mostly harmless)
bug in strptime.

Cheers,
-- 
Jacques Vidrine   NTT/Verio SME      FreeBSD UNIX       Heimdal
nectar at celabo.org jvidrine at verio.net nectar at freebsd.org nectar at kth.se