Re: projected life of the ext2 filesystem format
On 29 Jan 1998, Miquel van Smoorenburg wrote:
> In article <Pine.A22.214.171.1240129115217.42428Afirstname.lastname@example.org>,
> Scott Ellis <email@example.com> 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 <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 .