Re: [PATCH 0/4] replace unsinged long with time_t

Hi,

On Thu, Nov 06, 2008 at 10:13:46AM -0800 or thereabouts, Linus Torvalds wrote:

So "time_t" really is a pretty damn worthless type. It's not _quite_ as 
broken as "socklen_t" (which is just a broken name for "int", and anybody 
who declares it to be anythign else is a total moron), but it's close.

I have always thought that time_t and similar were braindead, but hey
the Janitor page listed it as desireable so what do I know ?

In theory, some platform might have a 64-but "unsigned long long" time_t 
even if the architecture is 32-bit (apparently windows used to do that if 
you included <time64.h>, for example), but since we wouldn't take 
advantage of that anyway, even then there is no real advantage.

Having a problem between 32 and 64 bit implementations does seem
undesireable.

http://git.or.cz/gitwiki/Janitor?action=info

Janitor wiki log says Pasky added the time_t conversion section.  Care
to explain the reason for the request Pasky ?

Dave