Re: latest gcc vs lib/timespec.h:85

[Jim Meyering]

On Sun, Oct 29, 2017 at 4:27 PM, Paul Eggert <address@hidden> wrote:
> Jim Meyering wrote:
>>
>> Here's a proposed patch:
>
> I prefer 'assume' to 'assure' here, since it's a low-level time-comparison
> primitive and lots of other code in the module already silently assumes that
> the timestamps are valid. Also, while I was in the neighborhood I noticed
> that the cast is no longer needed, since the module provokes -Wconversion
> warnings in several other places now (and I expect nobody notices because
> nobody looks at those warnings any more). So I installed the attached
> followup.

Oh, yes. Definitely prefer assume. Thanks for the fix.