[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Richard Bos) writes: [...] > It may be, btw, that your first time cannot fit in a time_t at all; for > example, on many common systems the NTP start time will be before the > earliest representable time, albeit not much before. Not much is, alas, > enough in this case. (To be less circumlocutory, the epoch under POSIX > is 00:00:00 on 1970-01-01; time_t, on such systems, is a signed long > int; and if that system is 32-bits and uses 32-bit longs, as many do, > 2**15 seconds is just over 68 years, making the most negative time_t > represent a time somewhere in 1901... just over a year after NTP's > 1900-01-01 :-/ ).
You mean 2**31 seconds, not 2**15 seconds. (This being comp.lang.moderated, I'll probably be one of at least half a dozen people pointing this out.) -- Keith Thompson (The_Other_Keith) [EMAIL PROTECTED] <http://www.ghoti.net/~kst> San Diego Supercomputer Center <*> <http://users.sdsc.edu/~kst> We must do something. This is something. Therefore, we must do this. -- comp.lang.c.moderated - moderation address: [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- you must have an appropriate newsgroups line in your header for your mail to be seen, or the newsgroup name in square brackets in the subject line. Sorry. _______________________________________________ questions mailing list [email protected] https://lists.ntp.isc.org/mailman/listinfo/questions
