lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2000]   [Jan]   [11]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
SubjectRe: time_t size: The year 2038 bug?
Date
From
Jesse Pollard <pollard@tomcat.admin.navo.hpc.mil> said:

[...]

> yes it is. but the number of bits is not. On a 32 bit system "long long" is
> 64 bits. On a 64bit system it is 128. And if you need more bits that
> that you are out of luck. "long long" is imprecise, I'd prefer a construct
> like "int var: 64". This way I know exactly how many bits are available.
> If I need 128 bits for something (or even 4096) then I can define them. Or
> is there going to be a "long long long long" for 128 bits, and "long long
> long long long long .... long" to reach 4096?

COBOL gives you this (sort of) >:-}

[You could use some multiprecicion library for this, if you _really_ need
it. Something I somehow doubt, at least I'm sure you don't need it bad
enough for all other C users to suffer it]
--
Horst von Brand vonbrand@sleipnir.valparaiso.cl
Casilla 9G, Viña del Mar, Chile +56 32 672616

-
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/

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2005-03-22 13:55    [W:0.037 / U:1.796 seconds]
©2003-2017 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site