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);
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.
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 <firstname.lastname@example.org> http://www.gate.net/~storm/
TO UNSUBSCRIBE FROM THIS MAILING LIST: e-mail the word "unsubscribe" to
Trouble? e-mail to email@example.com .