http://pubs.opengroup.org/onlinepubs/9699919799/
On Mon, Nov 18, 2013 at 17:47, Peter Fraser wrote: > double (or even better long double) would be a better underlying type for > time_t than long long. > > Programs that are using time_t properly would not notice the difference. > Programs that very > incorrect would get complete garbage for a result, and thus be easier to > notice and correct. > > Using double for time_t would allow a time_t value to be used as a time > stamp for events separated > by milliseconds. Using long double for time_t would allow time_t to be > used as time stamps to record > time starts and finish crossing an atom. I am sure the CERN would like it. > > It time_t is a double. It also makes sense for clock_t to be a double in > the same units.
