On Fri, Jan 02, 2004 at 08:23:57AM -0500, Asif Iqbal wrote: > David Yitzchak Cohen wrote: > > On Fri, Jan 02, 2004 at 09:33:23AM +0100, Jan Minar wrote: > > > On Fri, Jan 02, 2004 at 02:26:56AM -0500, David Yitzchak Cohen wrote: > > > > On Fri, Jan 02, 2004 at 08:27:15AM +0100, Jan Minar wrote: > > > > > On Thu, Jan 01, 2004 at 11:25:56PM -0500, David Yitzchak Cohen wrote: > > > > > > On Thu, Jan 01, 2004 at 06:56:11PM -0500, Asif Iqbal wrote: > > > > > Does Mutt not use an int counter? > > > > > > > > huh? > > > > > > Means it's not `forever', just for 2**31 units of time or so. > > > > It's really 2**32-1, which is closer to 2**32, so let's use that instead: > Actually on my Sun Enterprise 420R (2 X UltraSPARC-II 450MHz) the > highest I can do is 2**15-1 (32767) secs which is only 9 hours That's a result obtained experimentally? If so, it's rather interesting, even if you're running in 32-bit userland. No modern system (embedded systems exempted - I have one (the Hitachi H8300) that has only 8 bits in an int by default, so your mere 16 bits don't scare me) has ints under 32 bits, AFAIK, certainly not the UltraSPARC IIs. . . - Dave -- Uncle Cosmo, why do they call this a word processor? It's simple, Skyler. You've seen what food processors do to food, right? Please visit this link: http://rotter.net/israel
Attachment:
pgpBP7woSJ2a7.pgp
Description: PGP signature