Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > comp.lang.c > #396152 > unrolled thread
| Started by | gazelle@shell.xmission.com (Kenny McCormack) |
|---|---|
| First post | 2026-01-05 07:19 +0000 |
| Last post | 2026-01-05 15:57 +0000 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 209 — 21 participants |
Back to article view | Back to comp.lang.c
printf and time_t gazelle@shell.xmission.com (Kenny McCormack) - 2026-01-05 07:19 +0000
Re: printf and time_t Andrey Tarasevich <noone@noone.net> - 2026-01-05 00:17 -0800
Re: printf and time_t Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> - 2026-01-05 10:51 +0200
Re: printf and time_t gazelle@shell.xmission.com (Kenny McCormack) - 2026-01-05 12:45 +0000
Re: printf and time_t Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> - 2026-01-05 15:21 +0200
Re: printf and time_t gazelle@shell.xmission.com (Kenny McCormack) - 2026-01-05 13:49 +0000
Re: printf and time_t Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> - 2026-01-05 16:47 +0200
Re: printf and time_t gazelle@shell.xmission.com (Kenny McCormack) - 2026-01-05 15:29 +0000
Re: printf and time_t bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2026-01-05 13:22 +0000
Re: printf and time_t gazelle@shell.xmission.com (Kenny McCormack) - 2026-01-05 13:52 +0000
Re: printf and time_t Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2026-01-06 00:27 +0000
Re: printf and time_t Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> - 2026-01-06 11:29 +0200
Re: printf and time_t James Kuyper <jameskuyper@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2026-01-06 10:31 -0500
Re: printf and time_t Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> - 2026-01-06 20:05 +0200
Re: printf and time_t scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2026-01-06 18:16 +0000
Re: printf and time_t Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2026-01-07 05:06 -0800
Re: printf and time_t "James Russell Kuyper Jr." <jameskuyper@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2026-01-07 13:08 -0500
Re: printf and time_t Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2026-01-08 09:54 -0800
Re: printf and time_t Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2026-01-08 10:08 -0800
Re: printf and time_t scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2026-01-08 18:36 +0000
Re: printf and time_t Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2026-01-08 13:05 -0800
Re: printf and time_t scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2026-01-09 16:26 +0000
Re: printf and time_t Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2026-02-03 05:38 -0800
Re: printf and time_t "James Russell Kuyper Jr." <jameskuyper@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2026-01-10 22:40 -0500
Re: printf and time_t Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2026-01-06 16:29 -0800
Re: printf and time_t Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2026-01-06 17:14 -0800
Re: printf and time_t Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> - 2026-01-07 14:01 +0200
Re: printf and time_t Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2026-01-07 04:28 -0800
Re: printf and time_t Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2026-02-03 22:03 -0800
Re: printf and time_t scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2026-01-07 15:45 +0000
Re: printf and time_t Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2026-01-07 13:28 -0800
Re: printf and time_t Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> - 2026-01-08 01:26 +0200
Re: printf and time_t Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2026-01-07 16:00 -0800
Re: printf and time_t Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> - 2026-01-08 02:38 +0200
Re: printf and time_t Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2026-01-07 17:36 -0800
Re: printf and time_t Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> - 2026-01-08 11:01 +0200
Re: printf and time_t "James Russell Kuyper Jr." <jameskuyper@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2026-01-08 19:31 -0500
Re: printf and time_t Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> - 2026-01-09 14:18 +0200
Re: printf and time_t David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2026-01-09 13:49 +0100
Re: printf and time_t wij <wyniijj5@gmail.com> - 2026-01-10 00:17 +0800
Re: printf and time_t Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2026-01-09 11:27 -0800
Re: printf and time_t "James Russell Kuyper Jr." <jameskuyper@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2026-01-10 22:02 -0500
Re: printf and time_t Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> - 2026-01-11 13:20 +0200
Re: printf and time_t Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2026-01-11 04:59 -0800
Re: printf and time_t Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> - 2026-01-11 15:32 +0200
Re: printf and time_t David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2026-01-11 16:34 +0100
Re: printf and time_t Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> - 2026-01-11 18:19 +0200
Re: printf and time_t David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2026-01-11 20:25 +0100
Re: printf and time_t Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2026-01-11 15:23 -0800
Re: printf and time_t Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> - 2026-01-12 10:50 +0200
Re: printf and time_t Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2026-01-11 14:56 -0800
Re: printf and time_t Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2026-01-11 22:44 -0800
Re: printf and time_t Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> - 2026-01-12 10:51 +0200
Re: printf and time_t David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2026-01-12 08:21 +0100
Re: printf and time_t Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> - 2026-01-12 11:06 +0200
Re: printf and time_t David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2026-01-12 13:26 +0100
Re: printf and time_t Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2026-01-12 16:06 -0800
Re: printf and time_t David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2026-01-13 08:56 +0100
Re: printf and time_t Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2026-01-13 00:53 -0800
Re: printf and time_t David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2026-01-13 11:09 +0100
Re: printf and time_t Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> - 2026-01-13 13:45 +0200
Re: printf and time_t David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2026-01-13 14:32 +0100
Re: printf and time_t Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> - 2026-01-13 17:47 +0200
Re: printf and time_t Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2026-01-12 04:27 -0800
Re: printf and time_t David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2026-01-12 17:57 +0100
Re: printf and time_t Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2026-02-03 17:19 -0800
Re: printf and time_t Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2026-02-03 18:19 -0800
Re: printf and time_t Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2026-03-01 21:05 -0800
Re: printf and time_t "James Russell Kuyper Jr." <jameskuyper@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2026-01-13 21:24 -0500
Re: printf and time_t David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2026-01-14 09:26 +0100
Re: printf and time_t Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2026-01-14 14:53 -0800
Re: printf and time_t David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2026-01-15 08:29 +0100
Re: printf and time_t Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> - 2026-01-14 11:03 +0200
Re: printf and time_t James Kuyper <jameskuyper@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2026-01-14 22:19 -0500
Re: printf and time_t Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> - 2026-01-15 11:02 +0200
Re: printf and time_t Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2026-01-11 11:58 -0800
Re: printf and time_t David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2026-01-12 08:28 +0100
Re: printf and time_t Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2026-01-11 11:51 -0800
Re: printf and time_t Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> - 2026-01-11 23:51 +0200
Re: printf and time_t Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2026-01-11 22:47 -0800
Re: printf and time_t David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2026-01-12 08:34 +0100
Re: printf and time_t Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> - 2026-01-12 11:24 +0200
Re: printf and time_t Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> - 2026-01-12 10:34 +0200
Re: printf and time_t Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2026-02-03 07:47 -0800
Re: printf and time_t Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2026-02-03 19:51 +0000
Re: printf and time_t Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2026-02-04 06:22 -0800
Re: printf and time_t Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2026-02-04 16:44 +0000
Re: printf and time_t David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2026-02-04 18:12 +0100
Re: printf and time_t Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> - 2026-02-04 18:48 +0100
Re: printf and time_t Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2026-02-04 18:11 +0000
Re: printf and time_t David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2026-02-04 21:09 +0100
Re: printf and time_t Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2026-02-04 20:42 +0000
Re: printf and time_t David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2026-02-05 12:41 +0100
Re: printf and time_t Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2026-02-05 17:42 +0000
Re: printf and time_t scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2026-02-05 18:38 +0000
Re: printf and time_t Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> - 2026-02-05 23:55 +0100
Re: printf and time_t Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2026-02-05 23:42 +0000
Re: printf and time_t Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2026-02-05 21:10 -0800
Re: printf and time_t Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> - 2026-02-06 09:51 +0100
Re: printf and time_t Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2026-02-06 04:46 -0800
Re: printf and time_t Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2026-02-06 12:39 +0000
Re: printf and time_t Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> - 2026-02-06 14:47 +0200
Re: printf and time_t Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2026-02-06 13:04 +0000
Re: printf and time_t Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> - 2026-02-08 10:52 +0200
Re: printf and time_t Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> - 2026-02-08 12:18 +0100
Re: printf and time_t Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2026-02-08 04:03 -0800
Re: printf and time_t antispam@fricas.org (Waldek Hebisch) - 2026-02-08 16:50 +0000
Re: printf and time_t David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2026-02-08 18:55 +0100
Re: printf and time_t Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2026-02-08 19:54 +0000
Re: printf and time_t David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2026-02-08 21:27 +0100
Re: printf and time_t antispam@fricas.org (Waldek Hebisch) - 2026-02-08 19:59 +0000
Re: printf and time_t Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> - 2026-02-08 21:51 +0100
Re: printf and time_t Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2026-02-08 19:43 +0000
Re: printf and time_t David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2026-02-06 14:06 +0100
Re: printf and time_t Kaz Kylheku <046-301-5902@kylheku.com> - 2026-02-07 18:07 +0000
Re: printf and time_t Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2026-02-07 20:32 +0000
Re: printf and time_t antispam@fricas.org (Waldek Hebisch) - 2026-02-07 22:48 +0000
Re: printf and time_t Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2026-02-07 23:54 +0000
Re: printf and time_t antispam@fricas.org (Waldek Hebisch) - 2026-02-08 19:21 +0000
Re: printf and time_t Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2026-02-08 23:35 +0000
Re: printf and time_t antispam@fricas.org (Waldek Hebisch) - 2026-02-09 01:27 +0000
Re: printf and time_t Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2026-02-10 00:14 +0000
Re: printf and time_t antispam@fricas.org (Waldek Hebisch) - 2026-02-10 13:22 +0000
Re: printf and time_t antispam@fricas.org (Waldek Hebisch) - 2026-02-09 01:40 +0000
Re: printf and time_t Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2026-02-06 05:08 -0800
Re: printf and time_t Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2026-02-06 14:28 +0000
Re: printf and time_t Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2026-02-06 14:29 +0000
Re: printf and time_t Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2026-02-06 11:21 -0800
Re: printf and time_t Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2026-02-06 20:08 +0000
Re: printf and time_t Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2026-02-06 12:56 -0800
Re: printf and time_t scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2026-02-06 14:35 +0000
Re: printf and time_t Kaz Kylheku <046-301-5902@kylheku.com> - 2026-02-07 17:55 +0000
Re: printf and time_t Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2026-02-07 20:51 +0000
Re: printf and time_t David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2026-02-06 12:27 +0100
Re: printf and time_t Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2026-02-05 11:05 -0800
Re: printf and time_t Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2026-02-06 02:59 -0800
Re: printf and time_t Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2026-02-06 04:49 -0800
Re: printf and time_t Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2026-02-06 13:05 +0000
Re: printf and time_t Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2026-02-17 23:11 -0800
Re: printf and time_t David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2026-02-06 12:42 +0100
Re: printf and time_t Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> - 2026-02-04 22:48 +0200
Re: printf and time_t Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> - 2026-02-04 22:57 +0200
Re: printf and time_t Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2026-02-04 23:24 +0000
Re: printf and time_t Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2026-02-04 16:04 -0800
Re: printf and time_t Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2026-02-04 15:39 -0800
Re: printf and time_t Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2026-02-04 23:52 +0000
Re: printf and time_t David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2026-02-05 12:51 +0100
Re: printf and time_t Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2026-02-05 11:22 -0800
Re: printf and time_t David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2026-02-06 12:46 +0100
Re: printf and time_t Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2026-02-06 02:25 -0800
Re: printf and time_t Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2026-02-03 14:43 -0800
Re: printf and time_t Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2026-02-03 23:06 +0000
Re: printf and time_t Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2026-02-03 15:33 -0800
Re: printf and time_t "James Russell Kuyper Jr." <jameskuyper@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2026-01-13 22:17 -0500
Re: printf and time_t Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> - 2026-01-14 11:10 +0200
Re: printf and time_t James Kuyper <jameskuyper@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2026-01-15 06:10 -0500
Re: printf and time_t Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2026-01-15 04:00 -0800
Re: printf and time_t James Kuyper <jameskuyper@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2026-01-15 20:08 -0500
Re: printf and time_t Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2026-01-15 18:17 -0800
Re: printf and time_t David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2026-01-09 09:25 +0100
Re: printf and time_t David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2026-01-08 11:35 +0100
Re: printf and time_t James Kuyper <jameskuyper@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2026-01-06 19:44 -0500
Re: printf and time_t bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2026-01-07 01:14 +0000
Re: printf and time_t Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> - 2026-01-07 13:41 +0200
Re: printf and time_t bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2026-01-07 15:54 +0000
Re: printf and time_t Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> - 2026-01-07 18:17 +0200
Re: printf and time_t "James Russell Kuyper Jr." <jameskuyper@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2026-01-07 12:45 -0500
Re: printf and time_t Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2026-01-07 20:31 +0000
Re: printf and time_t Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2026-01-07 13:32 -0800
Re: printf and time_t Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> - 2026-01-08 01:29 +0200
Re: printf and time_t "James Russell Kuyper Jr." <jameskuyper@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2026-01-08 19:16 -0500
Re: printf and time_t David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2026-01-08 17:13 +0100
Re: printf and time_t Lew Pitcher <lew.pitcher@digitalfreehold.ca> - 2026-01-05 16:23 +0000
Re: printf and time_t gazelle@shell.xmission.com (Kenny McCormack) - 2026-01-05 16:34 +0000
Re: printf and time_t David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2026-01-05 17:34 +0100
Re: printf and time_t James Kuyper <jameskuyper@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2026-01-05 13:11 -0500
Re: printf and time_t David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2026-01-05 19:28 +0100
Re: printf and time_t James Kuyper <jameskuyper@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2026-01-05 14:00 -0500
Re: printf and time_t David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2026-01-05 20:38 +0100
Re: printf and time_t Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2026-01-05 14:41 -0800
Epoch seconds and linear count (was Re: printf and time_t) Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> - 2026-01-06 14:51 +0100
Re: printf and time_t Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> - 2026-01-05 19:23 +0200
Re: printf and time_t Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2026-01-05 15:04 -0800
Re: printf and time_t Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> - 2026-01-06 01:23 +0200
Re: printf and time_t Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2026-01-06 00:22 +0000
Re: printf and time_t James Kuyper <jameskuyper@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2026-01-06 10:22 -0500
Re: printf and time_t Lew Pitcher <lew.pitcher@digitalfreehold.ca> - 2026-01-06 15:45 +0000
Re: printf and time_t Michael Bäuerle <michael.baeuerle@gmx.net> - 2026-01-06 17:00 +0100
Re: printf and time_t Lew Pitcher <lew.pitcher@digitalfreehold.ca> - 2026-01-06 16:08 +0000
Re: printf and time_t James Kuyper <jameskuyper@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2026-01-06 11:19 -0500
Re: printf and time_t Lew Pitcher <lew.pitcher@digitalfreehold.ca> - 2026-01-06 16:18 +0000
Re: printf and time_t James Kuyper <jameskuyper@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2026-01-05 13:14 -0500
Re: printf and time_t David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2026-01-05 11:32 +0100
Re: printf and time_t James Kuyper <jameskuyper@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2026-01-05 07:37 -0500
Re: printf and time_t Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2026-01-06 00:30 +0000
Re: printf and time_t Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2026-01-05 20:00 -0800
Re: printf and time_t James Kuyper <jameskuyper@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2026-01-05 07:50 -0500
Re: printf and time_t Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2026-01-07 05:02 -0800
Re: printf and time_t "James Russell Kuyper Jr." <jameskuyper@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2026-01-07 12:58 -0500
Re: printf and time_t Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2026-03-01 23:21 -0800
Re: printf and time_t Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2026-03-02 03:37 -0800
Re: printf and time_t James Kuyper <jameskuyper@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2026-03-02 17:53 -0500
Re: printf and time_t Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2026-03-02 18:04 -0800
Re: printf and time_t Michael Sanders <porkchop@invalid.foo> - 2026-01-05 08:32 +0000
Re: printf and time_t Michael Sanders <porkchop@invalid.foo> - 2026-01-05 08:46 +0000
Re: printf and time_t highcrew <high.crew3868@fastmail.com> - 2026-01-05 12:48 +0100
Re: printf and time_t richard@cogsci.ed.ac.uk (Richard Tobin) - 2026-01-05 14:53 +0000
Re: printf and time_t gazelle@shell.xmission.com (Kenny McCormack) - 2026-01-05 15:36 +0000
Re: printf and time_t scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2026-01-05 15:57 +0000
Page 1 of 11 [1] 2 3 … 11 Next page →
| From | gazelle@shell.xmission.com (Kenny McCormack) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-01-05 07:19 +0000 |
| Subject | printf and time_t |
| Message-ID | <10jfol6$2u6r8$1@news.xmission.com> |
Here's kind of an old chestnut...
The question is: How can you reliably printf() a time_t value?
What conversion spec should you use?
The answer seems to be: try stuff until the compiler doesn't warn.
Note that there is now %z for size_t, but there really should be a "Just do
the right thing - you're the compiler, you know what type the arg is, do
the right thing" spec.
It turns out that in my use case, %lu works, but how can you know?
Note, BTW, that another way to do it is to use %d and case the time_t value
to (int), but that seems kludgey.
--
Nov 4, 2008 - the day when everything went
from being Clinton's fault to being Obama's fault.
[toc] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Andrey Tarasevich <noone@noone.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-01-05 00:17 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <10jfs23$2liif$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #396152 |
On Sun 1/4/2026 11:19 PM, Kenny McCormack wrote: > The question is: How can you reliably printf() a time_t value? > What conversion spec should you use? You can't. As far as the language is concerned, `time_t` is intended to be an opaque type. It has to be a real type, so it is either an integer of a plain floating-point type. But other than that nothing is known about it. There's really no point in printing it. If you still want to, you can do it in some implementation-specific way. Which still immediately means that you can't do it "reliably", if I understand what you mean correctly. -- Best regards, Andrey
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-01-05 10:51 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <20260105105138.00005f0a@yahoo.com> |
| In reply to | #396156 |
On Mon, 5 Jan 2026 00:17:07 -0800 Andrey Tarasevich <noone@noone.net> wrote: > On Sun 1/4/2026 11:19 PM, Kenny McCormack wrote: > > The question is: How can you reliably printf() a time_t value? > > What conversion spec should you use? > > You can't. As far as the language is concerned, `time_t` is intended > to be an opaque type. It has to be a real type, so it is either an > integer of a plain floating-point type. But other than that nothing > is known about it. There's really no point in printing it. > > If you still want to, you can do it in some implementation-specific > way. Which still immediately means that you can't do it "reliably", > if I understand what you mean correctly. > I can't think about situation in which casting time_t value to 'long long' can go wrong.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | gazelle@shell.xmission.com (Kenny McCormack) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-01-05 12:45 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <10jgbp7$2vdjt$1@news.xmission.com> |
| In reply to | #396161 |
In article <20260105105138.00005f0a@yahoo.com>,
Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> wrote:
...
>I can't think about situation in which casting time_t value to 'long
>long' can go wrong.
These are all good suggestions, but in the end, are all just kludgey
workarounds. My two points in posting are:
1) There really should be a generic way to print any numeric object and
have the compiler "Do The Right Thing".
2) Although time_t was the specific occasion for composing and posting
this, it, of course, applies to all the other "artificial" numeric
types. As mentioned in the OP, they seem to have come up with a
solution for size_t; it would be nice if that were generalized.
P.S. I like the rhythm of "long long can't go wrong"...
--
To be evangelical is to spend every waking moment hovering around
two emotional states: fear and rage. Evangelicals are seriously the
angriest and most vicious bunch of self-pitying, constantly-moaning
whinybutts I've ever encountered.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-01-05 15:21 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <20260105152100.00002469@yahoo.com> |
| In reply to | #396168 |
On Mon, 5 Jan 2026 12:45:27 -0000 (UTC) gazelle@shell.xmission.com (Kenny McCormack) wrote: > > P.S. I like the rhythm of "long long can't go wrong"... > By way of free association you comment caused me to recollect short SF story of Fritz Leiber that was written several years before I was born. https://archive.org/details/Galaxy_v20n01_1961-10/page/n157/mode/2up
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | gazelle@shell.xmission.com (Kenny McCormack) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-01-05 13:49 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <10jgfhv$2vkir$1@news.xmission.com> |
| In reply to | #396170 |
In article <20260105152100.00002469@yahoo.com>, Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> wrote: >On Mon, 5 Jan 2026 12:45:27 -0000 (UTC) >gazelle@shell.xmission.com (Kenny McCormack) wrote: > >> >> P.S. I like the rhythm of "long long can't go wrong"... >> > >By way of free association you comment caused me to recollect short SF >story of Fritz Leiber that was written several years before I was born. My free association story is that it makes me think of (and sing in my head) the song "Heard It In A Love Song" (Marshall Tucker Band). >https://archive.org/details/Galaxy_v20n01_1961-10/page/n157/mode/2up lynx didn't find anything useful (lots of noise, but no content) at that URL. Care to say a bit about what it is about? -- Faith doesn't give you the answers; it just stops you from asking the questions.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-01-05 16:47 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <20260105164720.0000352f@yahoo.com> |
| In reply to | #396172 |
On Mon, 5 Jan 2026 13:49:51 -0000 (UTC) gazelle@shell.xmission.com (Kenny McCormack) wrote: > In article <20260105152100.00002469@yahoo.com>, > Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> wrote: > >On Mon, 5 Jan 2026 12:45:27 -0000 (UTC) > >gazelle@shell.xmission.com (Kenny McCormack) wrote: > > > >> > >> P.S. I like the rhythm of "long long can't go wrong"... > >> > > > >By way of free association you comment caused me to recollect short > >SF story of Fritz Leiber that was written several years before I was > >born. > > My free association story is that it makes me think of (and sing in my > head) the song "Heard It In A Love Song" (Marshall Tucker Band). > > >https://archive.org/details/Galaxy_v20n01_1961-10/page/n157/mode/2up > > > > lynx didn't find anything useful (lots of noise, but no content) at > that URL. Care to say a bit about what it is about? > In short, beatniks on the orbit. For longer description, ask somebody who happens to be a native English speaker. Or for 20 minutes allow yourself to use a little less eccentric way of browsing web.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | gazelle@shell.xmission.com (Kenny McCormack) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-01-05 15:29 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <10jglcv$2vvm7$1@news.xmission.com> |
| In reply to | #396175 |
In article <20260105164720.0000352f@yahoo.com>, Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> wrote: ... >> >By way of free association you comment caused me to recollect short >> >SF story of Fritz Leiber that was written several years before I was >> >born. ... >> lynx didn't find anything useful (lots of noise, but no content) at >> that URL. Care to say a bit about what it is about? >> > >In short, beatniks on the orbit. >For longer description, ask somebody who happens to be a native English >speaker. Or for 20 minutes allow yourself to use a little less >eccentric way of browsing web. Indeed. I could do that. Still, thanks for the info. I am satisfied. -- So to cure the problem of arrogant incompetent rich people we should turn the government over to an arrogant incompetent trust fund billionaire who knows nothing about government and who has never held a job in his entire spoiled life?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | bart <bc@freeuk.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-01-05 13:22 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <10jgdu9$2t8dh$1@nntp.eternal-september.org> |
| In reply to | #396168 |
On 05/01/2026 12:45, Kenny McCormack wrote:
> In article <20260105105138.00005f0a@yahoo.com>,
> Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> wrote:
> ...
>> I can't think about situation in which casting time_t value to 'long
>> long' can go wrong.
>
> These are all good suggestions, but in the end, are all just kludgey
> workarounds. My two points in posting are:
>
> 1) There really should be a generic way to print any numeric object and
> have the compiler "Do The Right Thing".
My original C compiler had a way to do it:
#include <stdio.h>
#include <time.h>
int main(void) {
printf("%v\n", clock());
}
The special format "%v" (obviously only possible within a string
literal) is translated by the compiler into a suitable default for the
type of the corresponding expression.
In this case (64-bit Windows), it would be "%lld". As a bonus, "%=v"
shows the expression itself as a label; output is:
CLOCK()=0
> 2) Although time_t was the specific occasion for composing and posting
> this, it, of course, applies to all the other "artificial" numeric
> types. As mentioned in the OP, they seem to have come up with a
> solution for size_t; it would be nice if that were generalized.
The issue is even bigger than that:
* You need to /know/ the exact type of your expression
* Even if you do, it might comprise mixed types and you need to figure
out the overall type of the result
* It may use typedefs that you have to hunt down
* Or they may be opaque types exported from some library
* You may need th exact type and format. But you then you change the
types of some variables. Now all printf calls that might use those
variables in expressions need to be checked and possibly updated.
* Or you might just want to rearrange your print items.
* The type might be in64_t, say, but even if you know this, the format
will depend on whether it is implemented on top of 'long', or 'long long'.
For some of this, a compiler like gcc /might/ report a mismatch. It can
do that because it knows the types of the print items. But if it can do
that, it can also insert the correct format.
With my feature, you just do this:
printf("%v %v %v %v", a, b, c, d);
Who cares what the types are!
> P.S. I like the rhythm of "long long can't go wrong"...
Unless the type is floating about with a value between 0 and 1.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | gazelle@shell.xmission.com (Kenny McCormack) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-01-05 13:52 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <10jgfmk$2vkir$2@news.xmission.com> |
| In reply to | #396171 |
In article <10jgdu9$2t8dh$1@nntp.eternal-september.org>,
bart <bc@freeuk.com> wrote:
>On 05/01/2026 12:45, Kenny McCormack wrote:
>> In article <20260105105138.00005f0a@yahoo.com>,
>> Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> ...
>>> I can't think about situation in which casting time_t value to 'long
>>> long' can go wrong.
>>
>> These are all good suggestions, but in the end, are all just kludgey
>> workarounds. My two points in posting are:
>>
>> 1) There really should be a generic way to print any numeric object and
>> have the compiler "Do The Right Thing".
>
>My original C compiler had a way to do it:
>
> #include <stdio.h>
> #include <time.h>
>
> int main(void) {
> printf("%v\n", clock());
> }
>
>The special format "%v" (obviously only possible within a string
>literal) is translated by the compiler into a suitable default for the
>type of the corresponding expression.
Good thing. I had been about to say, in some post on this thread, that
lots of other languages can do this (starting with, e.g., BASIC), so why
can't C do it?
And, although I can't quite recall at the moment which language it was, I
know there was some language where it would do the label thing, too. I.e.,
you would code "print foo" and it would print "foo=...".
--
"Unattended children will be given an espresso and a free kitten."
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-01-06 00:27 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <10jhkso$3c9r2$3@nntp.eternal-september.org> |
| In reply to | #396171 |
On Mon, 5 Jan 2026 13:22:19 +0000, bart wrote: > In this case (64-bit Windows), it would be "%lld". Section 7.8 of the C spec defines macros you can use so you don’t have to hard-code assumptions about the lengths of integers in printf-format strings.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-01-06 11:29 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <20260106112938.00004446@yahoo.com> |
| In reply to | #396195 |
On Tue, 6 Jan 2026 00:27:04 -0000 (UTC) Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> wrote: > On Mon, 5 Jan 2026 13:22:19 +0000, bart wrote: > > > In this case (64-bit Windows), it would be "%lld". > > Section 7.8 of the C spec defines macros you can use so you don’t have > to hard-code assumptions about the lengths of integers in > printf-format strings. Did you ever try to use them? They look ugly.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | James Kuyper <jameskuyper@alumni.caltech.edu> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-01-06 10:31 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <10jj9st$3jbe4$2@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #396201 |
On 2026-01-06 04:29, Michael S wrote: > On Tue, 6 Jan 2026 00:27:04 -0000 (UTC) > Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> wrote: ... >> Section 7.8 of the C spec defines macros you can use so you don’t have >> to hard-code assumptions about the lengths of integers in >> printf-format strings. > > Did you ever try to use them? They look ugly. Which is more important, correctness or beauty? If you know that an expression has one of the standard-named types or typedefs for with there is a corresponding printf() specifier, you should use that specifier. Otherwise, if you know that an expression has one of the types declared in <stdint.h>, you should use the corresponding macro #defined in <inttypes.h> to print it. If you have a value that is not known to be of one of those types, but is known to be convertible to one of those types without change of value, you should convert it to one of those types.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-01-06 20:05 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <20260106200522.000015ea@yahoo.com> |
| In reply to | #396213 |
On Tue, 6 Jan 2026 10:31:41 -0500 James Kuyper <jameskuyper@alumni.caltech.edu> wrote: > On 2026-01-06 04:29, Michael S wrote: > > On Tue, 6 Jan 2026 00:27:04 -0000 (UTC) > > Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> wrote: > ... > >> Section 7.8 of the C spec defines macros you can use so you don’t > >> have to hard-code assumptions about the lengths of integers in > >> printf-format strings. > > > > Did you ever try to use them? They look ugly. > > Which is more important, correctness or beauty? > It depends. When I know for sure that incorrectness has no consequences, like in case of using %u to print 'unsigned long' on target with 32-bit longs, or like using %llu to print 'unsigned long' on target with 64-bit longs, then beauty wins. Easily. > If you know that an expression has one of the standard-named types or > typedefs for with there is a corresponding printf() specifier, you > should use that specifier. Otherwise, if you know that an expression > has one of the types declared in <stdint.h>, you should use the > corresponding macro #defined in <inttypes.h> to print it. I should? Really? Sorry, James, but you have no authority to make such statements. Unless you meant colloquial 'you' rather than a person participating on Usenet under nick Michael_S. > If you have > a value that is not known to be of one of those types, but is known > to be convertible to one of those types without change of value, you > should convert it to one of those types. That is better advice.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-01-06 18:16 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <nkc7R.819122$PGrb.454797@fx10.iad> |
| In reply to | #396225 |
Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> writes: >On Tue, 6 Jan 2026 10:31:41 -0500 >James Kuyper <jameskuyper@alumni.caltech.edu> wrote: > >> If you know that an expression has one of the standard-named types or >> typedefs for with there is a corresponding printf() specifier, you >> should use that specifier. Otherwise, if you know that an expression >> has one of the types declared in <stdint.h>, you should use the >> corresponding macro #defined in <inttypes.h> to print it. > >I should? Really? >Sorry, James, but you have no authority to make such statements. James is paraphrasing the C standard.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-01-07 05:06 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <86jyxtpo6j.fsf@linuxsc.com> |
| In reply to | #396226 |
scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) writes: > Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> writes: > >> On Tue, 6 Jan 2026 10:31:41 -0500 >> James Kuyper <jameskuyper@alumni.caltech.edu> wrote: >> >>> If you know that an expression has one of the standard-named types or >>> typedefs for with there is a corresponding printf() specifier, you >>> should use that specifier. Otherwise, if you know that an expression >>> has one of the types declared in <stdint.h>, you should use the >>> corresponding macro #defined in <inttypes.h> to print it. >> >> I should? Really? >> Sorry, James, but you have no authority to make such statements. > > James is paraphrasing the C standard. Really? What passage in the C standard is being paraphrased?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "James Russell Kuyper Jr." <jameskuyper@alumni.caltech.edu> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-01-07 13:08 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <10jm7f1$r6nl$2@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #396262 |
On 2026-01-07 08:06, Tim Rentsch wrote: > scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) writes: > >> Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> writes: >> >>> On Tue, 6 Jan 2026 10:31:41 -0500 >>> James Kuyper <jameskuyper@alumni.caltech.edu> wrote: >>> >>>> If you know that an expression has one of the standard-named types or >>>> typedefs for with there is a corresponding printf() specifier, you >>>> should use that specifier. Otherwise, if you know that an expression >>>> has one of the types declared in <stdint.h>, you should use the >>>> corresponding macro #defined in <inttypes.h> to print it. >>> >>> I should? Really? >>> Sorry, James, but you have no authority to make such statements. >> >> James is paraphrasing the C standard. > > Really? What passage in the C standard is being paraphrased? This is advice, not paraphrased text from the C standard. It's based upon several facts that are mentioned in the text of the standard: 1. <stdint.h> has typedefs for a variety integer types. They are typedefs precisely because they can, in general, specify different types on different implementations of C. 2. <inttypes.h> contains macros for printf and scanf type specifiers appropriate for use with those typedefs. 3. Using an inappropriate type specifier in either the printf() or scanf() families has undefined behavior, something that I generally want to avoid. For me, throughout most of my career, a high degree of portability was always required of my delivered code. Therefore, the desirability of using the <inttypes.h> type specifier macros, despite their clumsiness, follows from those facts. For other people, who don't mind restricting the portability of their code to platforms where it doesn't make a difference, the simplicity of using a fixed type specifier is more important.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-01-08 09:54 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <864iowng6d.fsf@linuxsc.com> |
| In reply to | #396278 |
"James Russell Kuyper Jr." <jameskuyper@alumni.caltech.edu> writes: > On 2026-01-07 08:06, Tim Rentsch wrote: > >> scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) writes: >> >>> Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> writes: >>> >>>> On Tue, 6 Jan 2026 10:31:41 -0500 >>>> James Kuyper <jameskuyper@alumni.caltech.edu> wrote: >>>> >>>>> If you know that an expression has one of the standard-named types or >>>>> typedefs for with there is a corresponding printf() specifier, you >>>>> should use that specifier. Otherwise, if you know that an expression >>>>> has one of the types declared in <stdint.h>, you should use the >>>>> corresponding macro #defined in <inttypes.h> to print it. >>>> >>>> I should? Really? >>>> Sorry, James, but you have no authority to make such statements. >>> >>> James is paraphrasing the C standard. >> >> Really? What passage in the C standard is being paraphrased? > > This is advice, not paraphrased text from the C standard. [...] I was responding to Scotty Lurndal's statement that the C standard was being paraphrased (by someone, it didn't matter to me who). I don't care about whether his statement is true; my interest is only in what part of the C standard he thinks is being paraphrased. He is in a position to answer that question, and more to the point he is the only person who is. Unrelated matter: a couple of your recent postings show a name change to a longer form of your name. I don't know what might have prompted that change, but for what it's worth I like the earlier shorter form better, if only for consistency with earlier postings.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-01-08 10:08 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <86zf6om0yv.fsf@linuxsc.com> |
| In reply to | #396304 |
Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> writes: > "James Russell Kuyper Jr." <jameskuyper@alumni.caltech.edu> writes: > >> On 2026-01-07 08:06, Tim Rentsch wrote: >> >>> scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) writes: > I was responding to Scotty Lurndal's statement that the C Sorry, Scott Lurndal. My bad.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-01-08 18:36 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <_OS7R.1473208$79B9.233810@fx14.iad> |
| In reply to | #396304 |
Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> writes: >"James Russell Kuyper Jr." <jameskuyper@alumni.caltech.edu> writes: > >> On 2026-01-07 08:06, Tim Rentsch wrote: >> >>> scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) writes: >>> >>>> Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> writes: >>>> >>>>> On Tue, 6 Jan 2026 10:31:41 -0500 >>>>> James Kuyper <jameskuyper@alumni.caltech.edu> wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> If you know that an expression has one of the standard-named types or >>>>>> typedefs for with there is a corresponding printf() specifier, you >>>>>> should use that specifier. Otherwise, if you know that an expression >>>>>> has one of the types declared in <stdint.h>, you should use the >>>>>> corresponding macro #defined in <inttypes.h> to print it. >>>>> >>>>> I should? Really? >>>>> Sorry, James, but you have no authority to make such statements. >>>> >>>> James is paraphrasing the C standard. >>> >>> Really? What passage in the C standard is being paraphrased? >> >> This is advice, not paraphrased text from the C standard. [...] > >I was responding to Scotty Lurndal's statement that the C >standard was being paraphrased (by someone, it didn't matter to >me who). I don't care about whether his statement is true; my >interest is only in what part of the C standard he thinks is >being paraphrased. He is in a position to answer that question, >and more to the point he is the only person who is. It's pretty clear that the standard describes the printf function and the methods used to match the format characters to the data types of the arguments. The fact that James framed that as advice doesn't change interpretation of the text of the standard, whether or not you consider that to be a paraphrase. "The main rules for paraphrasing are to fully understand the original text, restate its core idea in your own words and sentence structure, use synonyms, and always cite the original source to avoid plagiarism, even if the wording is different. And it is spelled "Scott".
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 1 of 11 [1] 2 3 … 11 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | comp.lang.c
csiph-web