HEADS UP! MAJOR change to FreeBSD/sparc64
Poul-Henning Kamp
phk at phk.freebsd.dk
Fri Mar 19 12:36:17 PST 2004
In message <405B519E.4060501 at aueb.gr>, Diomidis Spinellis writes:
>I could not find anything in my copy of C99, substantiating that.
>Seconds are not mentioned in any of the sections 7.23.1 defining time_t,
>7.23.2.3 defining mktime, and 7.23.2.4 defining time. Section 7.23.2.4
>specifically states that "the encoding of the value is unspecified", and
>7.23.2.3 specifies that "mktime returns the specified calendar time
>encoded as a value of type time_t".
This is a very interesting discussion with many interesting aspects.
I can barely wait until we get to discuss the theoretically very
important question of how many angles can dance on a time_t, not
to mention what they can dance in the resolution interval of it.
Also I find very insteresting the meta question it is possible to
define time_t as a type which is not able to represent the duration
of a bikeshed discussion about the finer aspects of type of time_t.
In the meantime time_t is a integer counting seconds since 00:00:00Z
1970-01-01 because anything else would be suicide by a thousand broken
ports.
If they survive that long, God forbid, even i386 and alpha will
have 64bit time_t before it becomes really important.
Can we get back to reality now ?
--
Poul-Henning Kamp | UNIX since Zilog Zeus 3.20
phk at FreeBSD.ORG | TCP/IP since RFC 956
FreeBSD committer | BSD since 4.3-tahoe
Never attribute to malice what can adequately be explained by incompetence.
More information about the freebsd-current
mailing list