On Fri, Dec 30, 2016 at 1:51 PM, Rob Landley <r...@landley.net> wrote: > On 12/30/2016 01:39 PM, enh wrote: >> 1928-04-26 17:31:55.746667836 18446744072394174731 > > Really we can partially blame posix here for not specifying whether > time_t is signed or unsigned. (If it's unsigned it can't represent times > before January 1, 1970, as the code on the left is doing. And there > _are_ times before then. So I think we have to treat it as signed and go > "32 bit timestamps gotta go away before 2038".)
if you want to be amused/horrified, you should look at the tzcode stuff. iirc they only recently agreed that time_t is an integral type. > Linus' opinion on unsigned time_t is here (spoiler: it's "no"): > > https://lkml.org/lkml/2011/8/31/246 > >> two patches attached. > ... >> the other >> removes void* casts unnecessary since POSIX 2008 and fixes the >> strftime buffer length argument. > > Why did you remove the comment block in the second patch? (Is it wrong?) yes. that's what the second patch is --- it switches to using the identifier the code should have used, which the comment claimed doesn't exist. (and which indeed didn't exist until POSIX 2008.) i guess "unnecessary" was a bit misleading: it's more "these casts are unnecessary if you use the name of the `struct timespec` rather than the name of the `time_t` inside the `struct timespec`". (there's also the "-128" change in the same patch, but that's unrelated and if i were less lazy i'd have sent that as a third patch.) > Rob -- Elliott Hughes - http://who/enh - http://jessies.org/~enh/ Android native code/tools questions? Mail me/drop by/add me as a reviewer. _______________________________________________ Toybox mailing list Toybox@lists.landley.net http://lists.landley.net/listinfo.cgi/toybox-landley.net
