Difference between revisions of "Talk:376: Bug"
(time_t is signed type) |
|||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
That is why on Unix epoch (the <nowiki>time_t</nowiki> type) is '''signed''' type, and covers dates before ''epoch''. --[[User:JakubNarebski|JakubNarebski]] ([[User talk:JakubNarebski|talk]]) 19:52, 5 July 2013 (UTC) | That is why on Unix epoch (the <nowiki>time_t</nowiki> type) is '''signed''' type, and covers dates before ''epoch''. --[[User:JakubNarebski|JakubNarebski]] ([[User talk:JakubNarebski|talk]]) 19:52, 5 July 2013 (UTC) | ||
| + | :Ohh, and much more is missing. I did mark it as incomplete. We also have to talk about the time frame the 32bit ''epoch'' does cover, and what would be changed by using a 64bit variable. What will happen on 19 January 2038?--[[User:Dgbrt|Dgbrt]] ([[User talk:Dgbrt|talk]]) 20:17, 5 July 2013 (UTC) | ||
Revision as of 20:17, 5 July 2013
That is why on Unix epoch (the time_t type) is signed type, and covers dates before epoch. --JakubNarebski (talk) 19:52, 5 July 2013 (UTC)
