On 17 Jan 2002 at 18:17, Hrvoje Niksic wrote: > "Ian Abbott" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > I'm also a little worried about the (time_t *)&cookie->expiry_time > > cast, as cookie->expiry time is of type unsigned long. Is a time_t > > guaranteed to be the same size as an unsigned long? > > It's not, but I have a hard time imagining an architecture where > time_t will be *larger* than unsigned long.
I received an email from Csaba R�duly which I hope he won't mind me quoting here: On 17 Jan 2002 at 12:45, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > Very few may care, but IBM's C/C++ compilers v 3.6.5 > typedef time_t as ... double ! > > Shouldn't cookie->expiry_time be declared as time_t ?
