"Richard Levitte - VMS Whacker" said: > time_t can be anything. It can be a nose-picking monster for all I > know. All that matters is that it should represent time in some way, > and be usefull in that way for any function that takes a time_t as an > argument. Under VMS (with DEC C), time_t is defined like this: > > typedef __time_t time_t; > > and __time_t is defined like this: > > typedef unsigned long int __time_t;
Ok, so unsigned isn't as uncommon as I thought. Apparently (http://mail-index.netbsd.org/port-alpha/1996/07/10/0000.html): "time_t" is defined by ANSI/ISO 9899-1990 (7.12.1) as an "arithmetic type capable of representing times". Not only does the standard *not* say how big time_t is, it doesn't even say if it is signed or unsigned. And the definition of "arithmetic type" includes floats too. > To represent time as a 64-bit blob, one could very well have this: > > typedef struct { unsigned long t1, t2; } time_t; The above reference says that this is impossible, but a "long long" or an "int64" if the compiler supports it should be okay. > That's why I'm asking you to tell me what problems you have with > time_t. It may be that some of the OpenSSL code does incorrect > assumptions about time_t (for example assumes that it's a long), and > therefore behaves incorrectly and should be corrected. Since I'm using the MSVC++ /W3 /WX options (max warnings, treat warnings as errors), the following two numbered lines in x509_vfy.c are giving errors: time_t offset; 807: offset= -offset; 813: X509_time_adj(&atm,-offset*60, cmp_time); > I will simply *not* change time_t to long in OpenSSL. That's going > backwards. Fair enough, I agree, but in this instance I think it's the right change since the second parameter of X509_time_adj is a long. > It doesn't make much sense to run VC from Cygwin either, or does it? No, not from within a bash shell, though it could be done except for running the batch files for the tests. Since I have Cygwin installed and have it's /bin directory in the Windows path, I use Cygwin's perl. I'm sure this isn't an unusual setup for anyone who uses Cygwin. Yeah, maybe it just makes it sound confusing to mention any of this :-) > Anyway, I'm sorry for the harsch notes. I think you've done a great > job doing this Windows CE port. No problem, no offence taken, I too want the code to be right. Thanks for all of your work to get these changes in. Regards, Steven ______________________________________________________________________ OpenSSL Project http://www.openssl.org Development Mailing List [EMAIL PROTECTED] Automated List Manager [EMAIL PROTECTED]
