lkml.org 
[lkml]   [1999]   [Jun]   [8]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
From
SubjectRe: Migrating to larger numbers
Date
In article <linux.kernel.7ITCO6lHw-B@khms.westfalen.de>,
Kai Henningsen <kaih@khms.westfalen.de> wrote:
>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,

The C programming language doesn't care what time_t is, because that's
not part of the C programming language.

____
david parsons \bi/ Or even if time_t exists.
\/

-
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:0.111 / U:0.744 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site