[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

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 <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: