> 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, and of course of POSIX too. I might add
it depends on a change that is quite unlikely to be approved, either.
There's only one large-capacity time_t allowed by the C standard (or
POSIX) that can hold more than the largest integer type - double. (Well,
or float if it's indeed larger.) Do you really want to use floating-point
here?
> >This is silly.
>
> Well, that statement I can agree with. But probably not in the
> way you'd want.
Obviously, I agree differently than you do.
MfG Kai
-
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/