Hi, On Thu, Nov 06, 2008 at 10:13:46AM -0800 or thereabouts, Linus Torvalds wrote: > So "time_t" really is a pretty damn worthless type. It's not _quite_ as > broken as "socklen_t" (which is just a broken name for "int", and anybody > who declares it to be anythign else is a total moron), but it's close. I have always thought that time_t and similar were braindead, but hey the Janitor page listed it as desireable so what do I know ? > In theory, some platform might have a 64-but "unsigned long long" time_t > even if the architecture is 32-bit (apparently windows used to do that if > you included <time64.h>, for example), but since we wouldn't take > advantage of that anyway, even then there is no real advantage. Having a problem between 32 and 64 bit implementations does seem undesireable. http://git.or.cz/gitwiki/Janitor?action=info Janitor wiki log says Pasky added the time_t conversion section. Care to explain the reason for the request Pasky ? Dave -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe git" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
