lkml.org 
[lkml]   [1999]   [Jun]   [8]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: Migrating to larger numbers
o.r.c@p.e.l.l.p.o.r.t.l.a.n.d.o.r.u.s (david parsons)  wrote on 07.06.99 in <7jhvkv$s21@pell.pell.portland.or.us>:

> I'll just have to toss it and replace it with gcc? That is, in
> the words of the immortal bard, less than optimal. (I have the
> same objection to 64-bitification of time_t; I'd much rather see
> time_t become a struct timeval or some similarly opaque type that
> doesn't depend on changing the definition of the C language.)

A struct timeval - indeed, any non-arithmetic type - depends on changing
the definition of the C language, and of course of POSIX too. I might add
it depends on a change that is quite unlikely to be approved, either.

There's only one large-capacity time_t allowed by the C standard (or
POSIX) that can hold more than the largest integer type - double. (Well,
or float if it's indeed larger.) Do you really want to use floating-point
here?

> >This is silly.
>
> Well, that statement I can agree with. But probably not in the
> way you'd want.

Obviously, I agree differently than you do.

MfG Kai

-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.rutgers.edu
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2005-03-22 13:52    [W:0.153 / U:2.404 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site