Re: __TIME_MIN/__TIME_MAX

From: Bruce Evans (bde_at_zeta.org.au)
Date: 11/15/03

  • Next message: Matthew D. Fuller: "Re: newfs and mount vs. half-baked disks" 
    Date: Sat, 15 Nov 2003 11:54:33 +1100 (EST)
To: "Jacques A. Vidrine" <nectar@FreeBSD.org>

    On Fri, 14 Nov 2003, Jacques A. Vidrine wrote:

    > In at least one place in libc, it is necessary to range check a time_t
    > value. One most platforms, time_t has the same range as `int', but
    > on at least amd64, it has a larger range. Any objections to adding
    > definitions of __TIME_MIN and __TIME_MAX to sys/${arch}/_limits.h?
    >
    > I could just do the usual check for lossage after casting, except that
    > in theory time_t could be a floating-point value (but not in reality
    > in FreeBSD). It seems cleaner to me to have an explicit range.

    I prefer the cast. It doesn't require nonstandard infrastructure that
    would need to be maintained forever, and works even better for floating
    point too (assuming a C99 compiler, but not in reality in FreeBSD :)
    (min/max checks don't work right for floating point because precision
    may be just as important as range).

    Bruce
    _______________________________________________
    freebsd-arch@freebsd.org mailing list
    http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-arch
    To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-arch-unsubscribe@freebsd.org"

  • Next message: Matthew D. Fuller: "Re: newfs and mount vs. half-baked disks"

    Relevant Pages