Re: Re: [HACKERS] Re: Call for port testing on fmgr changes -- Results!

Thomas Lockhart wrote:

> > Hmm, that makes all kinds of sense if time_t is not the same size as
> > AbsoluteTime --- which wouldn't surprise me at all on a 64-bit system.
> > time_t *ought* to be 64-bits on such a machine.  The casts in that
> > routine,
> >                 tx = localtime((time_t *) &time);
> > are obviously bogus if so.  Can anyone with an Alpha comment?
>
> I haven't had an Alpha for a couple of years, but I *strongly* recall
> that time_t is 64 bits on that machine.
>

In <sys/types.h> time_t is defined as an int4, i.e. 4 bytes. To
double-check I wrote a program to print sizeof:

sizeof(time_t)=4         (DU 4.0F, cc)

So I guess it is 32 bits. On the whole they have stuck to traditional sizes
for traditional types -- it would just have broken too many programmes
otherwise. Of course they are going to have to make time_t 64 bits within
the next 30 years ....

Adriaan