Messages in this thread | | | From | (david parsons) | Subject | Re: Migrating to larger numbers | Date | 8 Jun 1999 14:14:01 -0700 |
| |
In article <linux.kernel.7ITCO6lHw-B@khms.westfalen.de>, Kai Henningsen <kaih@khms.westfalen.de> wrote: >o.r.c@p.e.l.l.p.o.r.t.l.a.n.d.o.r.u.s (david parsons) wrote on 07.06.99 in <7jhvkv$s21@pell.pell.portland.or.us>: > >> I'll just have to toss it and replace it with gcc? That is, in >> the words of the immortal bard, less than optimal. (I have the >> same objection to 64-bitification of time_t; I'd much rather see >> time_t become a struct timeval or some similarly opaque type that >> doesn't depend on changing the definition of the C language.) > >A struct timeval - indeed, any non-arithmetic type - depends on changing >the definition of the C language,
The C programming language doesn't care what time_t is, because that's not part of the C programming language.
____ david parsons \bi/ Or even if time_t exists. \/
- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.rutgers.edu Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
| |