xiaoxiang781216 commented on PR #14460:
URL: https://github.com/apache/nuttx/pull/14460#issuecomment-2430955293
> > > 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? Anyway, we need ensure
the code owned by NuttX working for time_t which could be signed/unsigned or
32/64bit. But many userspace library comes from *nix, they may never try or
encounter the unsigned time_t before since all POSIX OS except NuttX define
time_t to signed.
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.
--
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: commits-unsubscr...@nuttx.apache.org
For queries about this service, please contact Infrastructure at:
us...@infra.apache.org
