yamt commented on PR #14460: URL: https://github.com/apache/nuttx/pull/14460#issuecomment-2430962989
> > > > I think it was discussed some time ago, but I don't remember about the consensus: if it should be unsigned or signed. I think signed makes sense > > > > > > > > > ALL other POSIX OS use signed integer, and we already find the compatibility issue, so it's better to follow their convention to improve the compatibility. > > > > > > otoh it breaks compatibility with nuttx itself. > > Which kernel code does depend on the unsigned time_t? i meant, our own 32-bit time_t is signed even if we merge this PR. > if we make it unsigned, we should deprecate 32-bit time_t, IMO. > > Actually, we never ship the product which define time_t to 32bit. It's fragile and hard to handle 2038 issue with 32bit integer. i meant we == nuttx. i guess you meant we == xiaomi. i agree it doesn't make much sense to ship a product with 32-bit time_t anymore. -- This is an automated message from the Apache Git Service. To respond to the message, please log on to GitHub and use the URL above to go to the specific comment. To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected] For queries about this service, please contact Infrastructure at: [email protected]
