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

Re: projected life of the ext2 filesystem format



On 29 Jan 1998, Miquel van Smoorenburg wrote:

> In article <Pine.A32.3.93.980129115217.42428A-100000@seminole.gate.net>,
> Scott Ellis <storm@gate.net> wrote:
> >Well, since the time function is documented as returning -1 on errors,
> >that pretty much rules out time_t being unsigned.
> >
> >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.
> 
> 
> Note that there's an explicit cast to time_t. It is not nessecarily
> true that (time_t)-1 == (int)-1. It could be true that
> (time_t)-1 == (unsigned int)-1

Okay, point made.  However, a vast majority of code out there (I assume)
is probably written to assume that time_t is signed, I expect making it
unsigned will break more than it's worth.  And I still think that you
should be able to use a negative time_t as seconds before the epoch.

-- 
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: