On 13.12.2018 03:22, Mouse wrote: >> In real life it's often needed to store time_t pointing before the >> UNIX epoch. > > I am inclined to doubt it - "real life" needs to store such times, > certainly, but I have yet to see a case where it imposes any particular > representation for that storage. (Without enlarging time_t, you can't > go before late 1901 even with full support for negative time_t anyway.) > time_t is already 64-bit (signed) on NetBSD. Storing negative times is a generic open topic so I defer myself from discussing it. It's the current (since ever) consensus (expected by software) among C systems to implement it as signed, it originated probably from the time when all numbers in C were signed and this remained unaltered. The issue by Michal has been located in C++ runtime library tests.
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature