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

[Jim Meyering]

Eric Blake wrote:
> 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

Nice.

> 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).

I can't imagine anyone objecting.  Thanks!