Path: csiph.com!usenet.pasdenom.info!gegeweb.org!eternal-september.org!feeder.eternal-september.org!mx04.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: Aleksej Saushev <asau@inbox.ru>
Newsgroups: comp.lang.forth
Subject: time_t Re: C interface
Date: Fri, 20 Jul 2012 01:15:54 +0400
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 24
Message-ID: <87eho7wiyd.fsf_-_@inbox.ru>
References: <jt2c4j$c4$1@online.de> <2012Jul10.173803@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at> <jtihu3$c09$1@online.de> <4ffd1b71.2438638@192.168.0.50> <jtng06$p0l$1@online.de> <4fffcf0d.105232408@192.168.0.50> <jtputo$ftm$1@online.de> <2012Jul14.145508@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at> <jtseos$kj$1@online.de> <2012Jul16.163401@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at> <50043116.387693@192.168.0.50> <ju20g0$kvi$1@online.de> <2012Jul17.133344@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at> <ju46gq$eso$1@online.de> <2012Jul19.191047@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Injection-Info: mx04.eternal-september.org; posting-host="b3ce569266230e786ee0c639f44c9d1e"; logging-data="19578"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1/YDA8PP3mPm7uYDiEfs4mg"
User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/23.4 (berkeley-unix)
Cancel-Lock: sha1:FsKuZ23xZpWGq0q+ftYoyn0wRWQ= sha1:TX1Nk8Xwte5+MV9y7tw3qmoPgqk=
Xref: csiph.com comp.lang.forth:14181

anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) writes:

> Bernd Paysan <bernd.paysan@gmx.de> writes:
>>Anton Ertl wrote:
>>> Well, by 2038 hopefully all Forth systems that call C functions will
>>> be 64-bit or higher, so having "n" for time_t should be viable.
>>
>>32 bit processors have been around since the 80s, yet we still have 8 
>>bit processors and Forths supporting them.  So by 2038, which is only 26 
>>years ahead, 32 bit processors will still exist, especially in the field 
>>where Forth is used quite often: embedded devices.  And these embedded 
>>devices in the 32 bit class have C libraries you might want to call.
>
> And you count on time_t being 64-bit there?  They did not do it for
> off_t (or only if you ask for it).
>
> But ok, if we want to be prepared for that eventuality, we should make
> time_t map to d.

On some operating systems (NetBSD) time_t is already 64-bit value.


-- 
HE CE3OH...