Re: Migrating to larger numbers
david parsons (o.r.c@p.e.l.l.p.o.r.t.l.a.n.d.o.r.u.s)
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/