this.address.is.fake at realh.co.uk
Tue Mar 14 02:56:25 CET 2006
In <cuqdnbf1lLdLgovZRVnyhA at pipex.net>,
Big and Blue <No_4 at dsl.pipex.com> wrote:
> Big and Blue wrote:
> > Tony Houghton wrote:
> >> How safe would I be assuming that
> >> sizeof(struct timeval) == 2 * sizeof(long)
> >> is always true on Linux on different architectures?
> > Based on what I was looking at today (well, yesterday now), you might
> > be wrong.
> However, it looks as though I was wrong:
[Snip headers showing my assumption is correct for his PC too]
I've already looked at those headers too. But most of the definitions
look like internal types and I'm not confident I can rely on them
staying the same size. But I don't think there's a strong enough case
for changing them to justify the glibc ABI change etc, so I'm probably
The address in the Reply-To is genuine and should not be edited.
See <http://www.realh.co.uk/contact.html> for more reliable contact addresses.
More information about the Python-list