Date: Mon, 15 Nov 1999 23:41:13 -0500 (EST)
From: Kev <co273 AT freenet DOT buffalo DOT edu>
To: Hans-Bernhard Broeker <broeker AT physik DOT rwth-aachen DOT de>
cc: djgpp AT delorie DOT com
Subject: Re: time() frequency
In-Reply-To: <199911151701.SAA24259@acp3bf.physik.rwth-aachen.de>
Message-ID: <Pine.GSO.3.96.991115233743.22152A-100000@freenet.buffalo.edu>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Reply-To: djgpp AT delorie DOT com
X-Mailing-List: djgpp AT delorie DOT com
X-Unsubscribes-To: listserv AT delorie DOT com
Precedence: bulk

> > Is it 1 second increments?  I'm trying to settle an argument with a
> > co-worker, who argued that it is in Microsecond increments.
> 
> In priciple, it could be either of those, or any arbitrary other
> thing.m
> 
> Well, curiosity will kill you otherwise, probably, so I'll tell you
> nevertheless: DJGPP follows Unix (POSIX) conventions and counts time_t
> as an integer number of seconds since 1970. But *don't* you dare rely
> on that! Next release, we could decide to change to 1e-10 of a month,
> instead, and that only if pure ANSI (non-POSIX) mode, be it just for
> the perverse fun of confusing lots of incorrect programs ;->
> 
Yeek!  And the scary thing is that the guy I'm having this shouting match
with uses Borland C++5, which might use the Microsecond Time convention!
And If I take this code to a SPARC or a Linux box, It'll yield different
results.
Oy Vey...I need a drink. This portability problem is making me puke.