Re: projected life of the ext2 filesystem format
On Thu, 29 Jan 1998, Brian White wrote:
> > > Personally, I don't see why we can't just consider those times as unsigned.
> > > How reliable, portable, etc. is the use of negative time_t?
> >
> > time_t foo, bar, baz;
> > foo = 10;
> > bar = 20;
> > baz = foo - bar;
>
> If you're specifically looking for a difference, then do:
>
> time_t foo,bar;
> int baz;
> foo = 10;
> bar = 20;
> baz = foo-bar;
>
> This is the same problem anywhere you're working with numbers. Leaving
> them signed just has the opposite problem of wrapping when you don't
> expect it.
Well, since the time function is documented as returning -1 on errors,
that pretty much rules out time_t being unsigned.
time_t time(time_t *t);
DESCRIPTION
time returns the time since the Epoch (00:00:00 UTC, Jan-
uary 1, 1970), measured in seconds.
If t is non-NULL, the return value is also stored in the
memory pointed to by t.
RETURN VALUE
On success, the value of time in seconds since the Epoch
is returned. On error, ((time_t)-1) is returned, and
errno is set appropriately.
--
Scott K. Ellis <storm@gate.net> http://www.gate.net/~storm/
--
TO UNSUBSCRIBE FROM THIS MAILING LIST: e-mail the word "unsubscribe" to
debian-devel-request@lists.debian.org .
Trouble? e-mail to templin@bucknell.edu .
Reply to: