On Sat, Jun 02, 2001 at 01:23:05AM -0700, Matt Dillon wrote:
> Yes, I know all that. The problem isn't that you couldn't have an
> unsigned time_t, the problem is that there are vast amounts of software
> already out there that would "break mysteriously" if you did. So,
> like the int<->long problem, the best thing to do is not rock the boat.
> That means for maximum portability time_t has to be a signed long. Not
> int, not unsigned int, not unsigned long... just 'long'.
There is not enough context here for me to get any idea what the issue
is. This email argued signed vs. unsigned, and that has nothing to do
with time_t being an int.
Since on IA-32 int == long, the only issue is what ones uses in printf()
and scanf(). I have not seen anyone having a problem with this yet.
So I ask you to bring this up on [EMAIL PROTECTED] why time_t
needs to be a long. If you had more multi-platform concerns you would
understand why having as consistent defintions of things is best for
FreeBSD.
--
-- David ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with "unsubscribe freebsd-stable" in the body of the message
