[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: bug in xtime.h
From: |
Bruno Haible |
Subject: |
Re: bug in xtime.h |
Date: |
Sun, 22 Dec 2019 23:40:26 +0100 |
User-agent: |
KMail/5.1.3 (Linux/4.4.0-166-generic; KDE/5.18.0; x86_64; ; ) |
Hi Paul,
> > diff --git a/lib/xtime.h b/lib/xtime.h
> > index 77f1c30..5e0ae89 100644
> > --- a/lib/xtime.h
> > +++ b/lib/xtime.h
> > @@ -42,12 +42,13 @@ extern "C" {
> > XTIME_INLINE xtime_t
> > xtime_make (xtime_t s, long int ns)
> > {
> > - const long int giga = 1000 * 1000 * 1000;
> > - s += ns / giga;
> > - ns %= giga;
> > return XTIME_PRECISION * s + ns;
> > }
>
> Akim put in that code in October 2018, but I can't see the need for it either.
It was surely needed before the simplification of commit
"gethrxtime: Assume that the compiler supports 'long long'."
that I did earlier today.
> > xtime_sec (xtime_t t)
> > {
> > return (t < 0
> > - ? (t + XTIME_PRECISION - 1) / XTIME_PRECISION - 1
> > + ? (t + 1) / XTIME_PRECISION - 1
> > : xtime_nonnegative_sec (t));
>
> Thanks for pointing out the bug. We can simplify the fix further (and speed it
> up a bit on typical hosts). I installed the second attached patch to do that.
Thanks! I confirm that the new formula is correct.
Bruno
- bug in xtime.h, Bruno Haible, 2019/12/22
- Re: bug in xtime.h, Paul Eggert, 2019/12/22
- Re: bug in xtime.h,
Bruno Haible <=
- Re: bug in xtime.h, Bruno Haible, 2019/12/23
- Re: bug in xtime.h, Paul Eggert, 2019/12/23
- Re: bug in xtime.h, Bruno Haible, 2019/12/23
- Re: bug in xtime.h, Paul Eggert, 2019/12/24
- Re: bug in xtime.h, Bruno Haible, 2019/12/24
- Re: bug in xtime.h, Paul Eggert, 2019/12/24
Re: bug in xtime.h, Akim Demaille, 2019/12/25