Re: [PATCH 1/6] t0006 & t5000: prepare for 64-bit time_t

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

 



Johannes Schindelin <johannes.schindelin@xxxxxx> writes:

> This quick fix, however, tests for *long* to be 64-bit or not. What we
> need, though, is a test that says whether *whatever data type we use for
> timestamps* is 64-bit or not.
>
> The same quick fix was used to handle the similar problem where Git's
> source code uses `unsigned long` to represent size, instead of `size_t`.
>
> So let's just add another prerequisite to test specifically whether
> timestamps are represented by a 64-bit data type or not. Later, when we
> will have switched to using `time_t` where appropriate, we can flip that
> prerequisite to test `time_t` instead of `long`.

The changes that move from LONG_IS to TIME_IS in this patch are all
about time (iow, LONG_IS_64BIT prereq is still used in the check on
sizes).  The patch looks sensible.




[Index of Archives]     [Linux Kernel Development]     [Gcc Help]     [IETF Annouce]     [DCCP]     [Netdev]     [Networking]     [Security]     [V4L]     [Bugtraq]     [Yosemite]     [MIPS Linux]     [ARM Linux]     [Linux Security]     [Linux RAID]     [Linux SCSI]     [Fedora Users]