• State Not Answered
  • Locked Locked
  • Replies 6 replies
  • Subscribers 22 subscribers
  • Views 2396 views
  • Users 0 members are here
Options
Related
How was your experience today?
This discussion has been locked.
You can no longer post new replies to this discussion. If you have a question you can start a new discussion

RVCT :time_t

Viktor Bucher

time_t is defined in time.h as :

typedef unsigned int time_t;

In my opinion it should be defined as :

typedef long time_t;

Am I right ?

Parents
  • 0 in reply to HansBernhard Broeker

    Slip of the finger. The typecast is correct, but it should be "%ld", and not "%lu". The time_t datatype is signed just because it should be possible to store a negative difference in it.

    This is the big reason why the data type isn't just changed from long to unsigned long - a lot of programs would break then. In early 2038, we will see if your microcontrollers have suddenly become 64-bit or if a lot of hardware appliances will suddenly break :)

    C99 isn't always available :(

Reply
  • 0 in reply to HansBernhard Broeker

    Slip of the finger. The typecast is correct, but it should be "%ld", and not "%lu". The time_t datatype is signed just because it should be possible to store a negative difference in it.

    This is the big reason why the data type isn't just changed from long to unsigned long - a lot of programs would break then. In early 2038, we will see if your microcontrollers have suddenly become 64-bit or if a lot of hardware appliances will suddenly break :)

    C99 isn't always available :(

Children
No data