time_t

[Nathan Buchanan]

On Tue, Jul 15, 2008 at 5:25 AM, Graham Leggett <minfrin at sharp.fm> wrote:

> Nathan Buchanan wrote:
>
>  I guess the real question is - can we wait a couple years for a 64 bit
>> time_t? Probably, I think.
>>
>
> Are there any systems in wide use that aren't yet 64 bit time_t? I was
> under the impression that OSes had already changed.
>
> A quick look under MacOSX Leopard shows time_t is a long, and on RHEL5 it
> is a long int.


I'm a bit out of my league here...but I believe a long (or long int) is
defined to be a minimum of 32 bits - so if you're still using a 32 bit
system(?) (or processor?) you may still get a 32 bit time_t.

Nathan

>
>
> Regards,
> Graham
> --
>



-- 
<><><><><><><><><><><><><><><>
"Even if you are on the right track, you'll get run over if you just sit
there" - Will Rogers