From: David Bryson <david@statichacks.org>
Date: Thu, 06 Nov 2008 18:37:22 GMT
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/4] replace unsinged long with time_t
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