search for: __time64_t

Hi, Is it necessary to use the VC6.1+ `__time64_t' type instead of __time_t in win32/TimeValue.cpp? --------------- In file included from c:/projects/src/llvm-1/llvm/lib/System/TimeValue.cpp:51: c:/projects/build/MinGW/llvm-1-1/lib/System/platform/TimeValue.cpp: In member function `std::string llvm::sys::TimeValue::toString() const': c...

Replace __time_t with time_t in my question. I've compiled function: std::string TimeValue::toString() const { // Alas, asctime is not re-entrant on Windows... //hb: __time64_t ourTime = this->toEpochTime(); time_t ourTime = this->toEpochTime(); //hb: char* buffer = ::asctime(::_localtime64(&ourTime)); char* buffer = ::asctime(::localtime(&ourTime)); std::string result(buffer); return result.substr(0,24); } without any complaints. Shouldn't it...

I'm not sure. Perhaps Jeff Cohen knows as he wrote this. Reid. On Tue, 2004-12-14 at 11:51, Henrik Bach wrote: > Hi, > > Is it necessary to use the VC6.1+ `__time64_t' type instead of __time_t in > win32/TimeValue.cpp? > > --------------- > In file included from > c:/projects/src/llvm-1/llvm/lib/System/TimeValue.cpp:51: > c:/projects/build/MinGW/llvm-1-1/lib/System/platform/TimeValue.cpp: In > member function `std::string llvm::sys::...

...e that this isn't final, I didn't want to replace all calls to ::stat so that it's easier to review. I have only one more questions: 1. _wopen accepts _stat64i32 instead of stat structure. These two are exactly the same, the only difference is that stat uses time_t and _stat64i32 uses __time64_t (time_t is a typedef for __time64_t but this depends on one more macro). I check to see that size of these two structures is the same, but is there something more that I could do? I'd also like to use some kind of static assert instead of runtime assert. I've also noticed that function Low...

...t final, I didn't want to replace all calls to ::stat so that it's easier to review. > > I have only one more questions: > > 1. _wopen accepts _stat64i32 instead of stat structure. These two are exactly the same, the only difference is that stat uses time_t and _stat64i32 uses __time64_t (time_t is a typedef for __time64_t but this depends on one more macro). I check to see that size of these two structures is the same, but is there something more that I could do? I'd also like to use some kind of static assert instead of runtime assert. > > I've also noticed that fu...

...#39;t want to replace all calls to ::stat so that it's easier to review. >> >> I have only one more questions: >> >> 1. _wopen accepts _stat64i32 instead of stat structure. These two are exactly the same, the only difference is that stat uses time_t and _stat64i32 uses __time64_t (time_t is a typedef for __time64_t but this depends on one more macro). I check to see that size of these two structures is the same, but is there something more that I could do? I'd also like to use some kind of static assert instead of runtime assert. >> >> I've also noticed...

On Tue, Sep 20, 2011 at 4:15 PM, Nikola Smiljanic <popizdeh at gmail.com> wrote: > OK since this approach makes sense I'll shoot with my questions :) > 1. Where should get_utf8_argv go and is the name of this function OK? Right > now the function is inside llvm::sys::fs namespace because I need access to > Windows.h, should I leave it there. I don't think it belongs

...dn't want to replace all calls to ::stat so that it's > easier to review. > > I have only one more questions: > > 1. _wopen accepts _stat64i32 instead of stat structure. These two are > exactly the same, the only difference is that stat uses time_t > and _stat64i32 uses __time64_t (time_t is a typedef for __time64_t but this > depends on one more macro). I check to see that size of these two structures > is the same, but is there something more that I could do? I'd also like to > use some kind of static assert instead of runtime assert. > > I've also n...

...place all calls to ::stat so that it's easier to review. >>> >>> I have only one more questions: >>> >>> 1. _wopen accepts _stat64i32 instead of stat structure. These two are exactly the same, the only difference is that stat uses time_t and _stat64i32 uses __time64_t (time_t is a typedef for __time64_t but this depends on one more macro). I check to see that size of these two structures is the same, but is there something more that I could do? I'd also like to use some kind of static assert instead of runtime assert. >>> >>> I've also...

...calls to ::stat so that it's >> easier to review. >> >> I have only one more questions: >> >> 1. _wopen accepts _stat64i32 instead of stat structure. These two are >> exactly the same, the only difference is that stat uses time_t >> and _stat64i32 uses __time64_t (time_t is a typedef for __time64_t but this >> depends on one more macro). I check to see that size of these two structures >> is the same, but is there something more that I could do? I'd also like to >> use some kind of static assert instead of runtime assert. >> >...

...#39;s >>> easier to review. >>> >>> I have only one more questions: >>> >>> 1. _wopen accepts _stat64i32 instead of stat structure. These two are >>> exactly the same, the only difference is that stat uses time_t >>> and _stat64i32 uses __time64_t (time_t is a typedef for __time64_t but this >>> depends on one more macro). I check to see that size of these two structures >>> is the same, but is there something more that I could do? I'd also like to >>> use some kind of static assert instead of runtime assert. &...

...to ::stat so that it's easier to review. >>>> >>>> I have only one more questions: >>>> >>>> 1. _wopen accepts _stat64i32 instead of stat structure. These two are exactly the same, the only difference is that stat uses time_t and _stat64i32 uses __time64_t (time_t is a typedef for __time64_t but this depends on one more macro). I check to see that size of these two structures is the same, but is there something more that I could do? I'd also like to use some kind of static assert instead of runtime assert. >>>> >>>> I'...

...r to review. >>>> >>>> I have only one more questions: >>>> >>>> 1. _wopen accepts _stat64i32 instead of stat structure. These two are >>>> exactly the same, the only difference is that stat uses time_t >>>> and _stat64i32 uses __time64_t (time_t is a typedef for __time64_t but this >>>> depends on one more macro). I check to see that size of these two structures >>>> is the same, but is there something more that I could do? I'd also like to >>>> use some kind of static assert instead of runti...

...calls to ::stat so that it's >> easier to review. >> >> I have only one more questions: >> >> 1. _wopen accepts _stat64i32 instead of stat structure. These two are >> exactly the same, the only difference is that stat uses time_t >> and _stat64i32 uses __time64_t (time_t is a typedef for __time64_t but this >> depends on one more macro). I check to see that size of these two structures >> is the same, but is there something more that I could do? I'd also like to >> use some kind of static assert instead of runtime assert. >> >...

...t it's easier to review. >>>>> >>>>> I have only one more questions: >>>>> >>>>> 1. _wopen accepts _stat64i32 instead of stat structure. These two are exactly the same, the only difference is that stat uses time_t and _stat64i32 uses __time64_t (time_t is a typedef for __time64_t but this depends on one more macro). I check to see that size of these two structures is the same, but is there something more that I could do? I'd also like to use some kind of static assert instead of runtime assert. >>>>> >>>>&g...

Source: xen Version: 4.17.3+10-g091466ba55-1 Severity: serious Tags: patch pending sid trixie Justification: library ABI skew on upgrade User: debian-arm at lists.debian.org Usertags: time-t NOTICE: these changes must not be uploaded to unstable yet! Dear maintainer, As part of the 64-bit time_t transition required to support 32-bit architectures in 2038 and beyond