Re: time_t size: The year 2038 bug?

[Jesse Pollard]

>Jesse Pollard <[e-mail]> said:
>
>[...]
>
>> yes it is. but the number of bits is not. On a 32 bit system "long long" is
>> 64 bits. On a 64bit system it is 128. And if you need more bits that
>> that you are out of luck. "long long" is imprecise, I'd prefer a construct
>> like "int var: 64". This way I know exactly how many bits are available.
>> If I need 128 bits for something (or even 4096) then I can define them. Or
>> is there going to be a "long long long long" for 128 bits, and "long long
>> long long long long .... long" to reach 4096?
>
>COBOL gives you this (sort of) >:-}
>
>[You could use some multiprecicion library for this, if you _really_ need
> it. Something I somehow doubt, at least I'm sure you don't need it bad
> enough for all other C users to suffer it]

As a language contstruct - if you don't need it, don't use it. It does
simplify/clean up a lot of definitions that have variable bit widths
depending on archetecture. I've already fought Kerberos libraries trying
to compile it as a 64 bit library - (IP addresses suddently went to 64 bits,
other "int" structures changed to 64 bits, portability was zip.)

Most of the fields that caused problems could easily have been delt with
if a "int var : 32" could have been used to create the types in the
various data structures.

As far as the library goes ... when I need it I'll use it. The code would
be much cleaner if I didn't have to make each expression a function call.
That can turn the code into lisp...
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Jesse I Pollard, II
Email: [e-mail]

Any opinions expressed are solely my own.