Eric Blake wrote: > On 10/01/2010 04:34 PM, Eric Blake wrote: >> On 10/01/2010 09:19 AM, Eric Blake wrote: >>>> Correct - time_t need not be integral, but do we have any proof of a >>>> system using a floating-point time_t? >>> >>> I think I'm going to write a POSIX bug requesting that time_t be >>> tightened to integral in light of the fact that subsecond support is now >>> uniformly guaranteed via tv_nsec, and given the argument that existing >>> platforms never took advantage of float time_t. >> >> http://austingroupbugs.net/view.php?id=327 > > This was accepted in yesterday's Austin Group meeting. Would anyone
Nice. > oppose a patch that adds a compile-time verification in gnulib's > <time.h> that time_t is integral on all platforms that we support, > given that POSIX now requires this even though C99 doesn't? That way, > projects using gnulib can rely on the POSIX requirement that time_t is > an integer (still unspecified whether it is signed or unsigned, and > whether it is 32- or 64-bit, but much easier to code with than having > to worry about floating point in the mix). I can't imagine anyone objecting. Thanks!
