FW: Definition of time_t changed from signed to unsigned...

[Clive D.W. Feather]

Guy Harris said:
> 	   o time_t and clock_t shall be integer or real-floating types.
> I infer from "size_t shall be an unsigned integer type" that "integer
> type" means "signed integer type" as opposed to "unsigned integer type";

WRONG.

"signed integer type" means signed integer type.
"integer type" means integer type, which can be signed, unsigned, or
neither. [Read the C Standard if "neither" is unclear.]

> if that inference is correct, use of "unsigned long" would violate the
> SUS.

It's wrong, and there is no such violation.

>> My question is: am I just using an obsolete version of the timezone source
>> or should I just change the time_t typedef in the OS?
> If you can, I'd change the time_t typedef in the OS.

Changing an OS-supplied definition is EXTREMELY DUMB. You're risking
breaking the OS interfaces.

If the tz code needs a signed type, it should invent its own name for it
and change all the definitions. If it needs the actual time_t type, then
the code should not be making assumptions about signedness or number of
bits.

-- 
Clive D.W. Feather  | Work:  <clive at demon.net>   | Tel:    +44 20 8495 6138
Internet Expert     | Home:  <clive at davros.org>  | Fax:    +44 870 051 9937
Demon Internet      | WWW: http://www.davros.org | Mobile: +44 7973 377646
Thus plc            |                            |