Messages in this thread | | | Date | 08 Jun 1999 20:25:00 +0200 | From | (Kai Henningsen) | Subject | Re: 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/
| |