News for hackers. Stuff that matters.

A comment on Java JDK 1.0 (1996). Parent comment

Re:Java JDK 1.0 (1996) by vbezhenar on Saturday May 15, 2021 @07:29AM (#27164293)
int is signed.
[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Java JDK 1.0 (1996) by im3w1l on Sunday May 16, 2021 @07:57AM (#27173059)
It would be possible and kind of hilarious to use a negative offset from year 2b.
[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Java JDK 1.0 (1996) by rzzzt on Saturday May 15, 2021 @08:00AM (#27164443)
You don't want to go back 2 billion years from 1900?
[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Java JDK 1.0 (1996) by froh on Saturday May 15, 2021 @08:10AM (#27164492)
on x86 and arm. not on s390.
[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Java JDK 1.0 (1996) by rzzzt on Saturday May 15, 2021 @08:28AM (#27164584)
In a Java Virtual Machine, it is a 32-bit signed value: https://docs.oracle.com/javase/specs/jvms/se7/html/jvms-2.ht...
[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Java JDK 1.0 (1996) by froh on Saturday May 15, 2021 @02:03PM (#27167447)
my bad you're right. I got confused on if we are on the java or on the c side of things, because we discussed 'verbatim copy of c struct... fields'

apologies.

[ Parent | on HN ]