Subject: Re: unsigned time_t's? (was Re: kern/6347)
To: Perry E. Metzger <perry@piermont.com>
From: Gandhi woulda smacked you <greywolf@starwolf.com>
List: current-users
Date: 07/13/1999 18:59:46
On 13 Jul 1999, Perry E. Metzger wrote:
#
# Gandhi woulda smacked you <greywolf@starwolf.com> writes:
# > On Tue, 13 Jul 1999, Dave Sainty wrote:
# >
# > # ...check out those modification times!
# > # Setuid additions:
# > # prwsr-xr-x 18164 2633305079 670483187 5545397811823284715 \
# > # Sep 10 14:41:52 1914 /vol/tequila/userC/NetBSD-sup/pkgsrc/x11/wmthemes
# > ^^^^
# > # Dave
# > #
# >
# > ...you mean our time_t is still interpreted as a signed value? That's not
# > very Y1.990K compliant :-)
# >
# > [FWIW: Solaris 7 interprets time_t as unsigned, which extends years to
# > somewhere in 2100 or so...]
#
# I can't believe this.
My fault. Solaris' strftime() and family (ctime()...) seem to
interpret it as unsigned; of course one will need to set one's clock
BACKward from time to time (hopefully rarely).
That was what I meant. Sorry for the confuzzlement.
--*greywolf;
--
NetBSD: "Progress on your system is closer than it appears."