Re: [coreutils] [PATCH 2/2] stat: print timestamps to full resolution

[Eric Blake]

On 10/01/2010 04:34 PM, Eric Blake wrote:
> On 10/01/2010 09:19 AM, Eric Blake wrote:
> > > Correct - time_t need not be integral, but do we have any proof of a
> > > system using a floating-point time_t?
> >
> > I think I'm going to write a POSIX bug requesting that time_t be
> > tightened to integral in light of the fact that subsecond support is now
> > uniformly guaranteed via tv_nsec, and given the argument that existing
> > platforms never took advantage of float time_t.
>
> http://austingroupbugs.net/view.php?id=327

This was accepted in yesterday's Austin Group meeting.  Would anyone 
oppose a patch that adds a compile-time verification in gnulib's 
<time.h> that time_t is integral on all platforms that we support, given 
that POSIX now requires this even though C99 doesn't?  That way, 
projects using gnulib can rely on the POSIX requirement that time_t is 
an integer (still unspecified whether it is signed or unsigned, and 
whether it is 32- or 64-bit, but much easier to code with than having to 
worry about floating point in the mix).

--
Eric Blake   address@hidden    +1-801-349-2682
Libvirt virtualization library http://libvirt.org