Re: [PATCH 0/4] replace unsinged long with time_t
- From
David Bryson <david@statichacks.org>
- Date
- Nov 6, 2008, 18:37 UTC
- Message-ID
- <20081106183722.GL10996@eratosthenes.cryptobackpack.org>
- In-Reply-To
- <alpine.LFD.2.00.0811061000430.3419@nehalem.linux-foundation.org>
Hi,
On Thu, Nov 06, 2008 at 10:13:46AM -0800 or thereabouts, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> So "time_t" really is a pretty damn worthless type. It's not _quite_ as > broken as "socklen_t" (which is just a broken name for "int", and anybody > who declares it to be anythign else is a total moron), but it's close.
I have always thought that time_t and similar were braindead, but hey the Janitor page listed it as desireable so what do I know ?
> In theory, some platform might have a 64-but "unsigned long long" time_t > even if the architecture is 32-bit (apparently windows used to do that if > you included <time64.h>, for example), but since we wouldn't take > advantage of that anyway, even then there is no real advantage.
Having a problem between 32 and 64 bit implementations does seem undesireable.
http://git.or.cz/gitwiki/Janitor?action=info
Janitor wiki log says Pasky added the time_t conversion section. Care to explain the reason for the request Pasky ?
Dave