Definition of time_t changed from signed to unsigned...

[Guy Harris]

On Jul 19, 2004, at 1:38 AM, Clive D.W. Feather wrote:

> Guy Harris said:
>> 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.

When he said "I am in the process of upgrading the kernel version on a 
platform that I
work on.", it sounded as if he might be one of the developers *of* that 
platform - in which case he might be in a position to get time_t 
changed back to signed, if they hadn't yet shipped a release with an 
unsigned time_t.

That's why I said "if you can".