> double (or even better long double) would be a better underlying > type for time_t than long long.
If you believe strongly in this idea, you should take an entire operating system base and prove the case. By converting the entire base. By showing that it will work. By getting X and firefox running on it. By fixing NTP, DNS, and everything else. > Programs that are using time_t properly would not notice the > difference. Programs that very incorrect would get complete garbage > for a result, and thus be easier to notice and correct. And through this processs we will reach time_t utopia? > Using double for time_t would allow a time_t value to be used as a > time stamp for events separated by milliseconds. Using long double > for time_t would allow time_t to be used as time stamps to record > time starts and finish crossing an atom. I am sure the CERN would > like it. > > It time_t is a double. It also makes sense for clock_t to be a > double in the same units. So in that case, you should start by converting a entire OS source tree. Without that step, your assertion lacks essential value, because the benefits may be significantly minor compared to the difficulties on the way. I recommend you a lot of luck inside the kernel, because it cannot do floating point. And time_t math is done inside the kernel (what are the odds..) See, the kernels avoid doing floating point because the floating point registers contain values for the userland contexts. You could undo this "feature", and then argue that the performance losses are irrelevant. You will also have great fun in the various DNS related codebases. Good luck!
