Jacques A. Vidrine nectar at FreeBSD.org
Sun Nov 16 05:01:00 PST 2003

On Sun, Nov 16, 2003 at 06:52:30AM -0600, Jacques A. Vidrine wrote:
> 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).

I should know better than to question whether you are certain :-)
I think I have failed to differentiate between `implementation-defined'
and `undefined'.

I'd like to avoid both `implementation-defined' and `undefined'

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

More information about the freebsd-arch mailing list