Date: Sat, 27 Oct 2001 19:19:49 +0200 From: Bernd Walter <ticso@cicely8.cicely.de> To: Matthew Dillon <dillon@apollo.backplane.com> Cc: John Baldwin <jhb@FreeBSD.ORG>, Bakul Shah <bakul@bitblocks.com>, Peter Wemm <peter@wemm.org>, arch@FreeBSD.ORG, Poul-Henning Kamp <phk@critter.freebsd.dk> Subject: Re: 64 bit times revisited.. Message-ID: <20011027191949.A43183@cicely8.cicely.de> In-Reply-To: <200110262128.f9QLSX838762@apollo.backplane.com> References: <XFMail.011026142407.jhb@FreeBSD.org> <200110262128.f9QLSX838762@apollo.backplane.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Fri, Oct 26, 2001 at 02:28:33PM -0700, Matthew Dillon wrote: > The phrase 'no freaking way' comes to mind. > > You guys are outsmarting yourselves. Seconds, ok. That's it. Nothing > else. The *VAST* majority of programs only need seconds, it would be > utterly stupid to require that they mess around with some weird fixed > point quantity when all they want is seconds, no matter how supposedly > 'simple' that messing around is (i.e. '>> 64' is not acceptable). If you make it a union with 128bit and 2 64bit values you can access it simply by choosing the right name. I don't see a difference for second only programms compared to have the sub second part with different meanings. -- B.Walter COSMO-Project http://www.cosmo-project.de ticso@cicely.de Usergroup info@cosmo-project.de To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-arch" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20011027191949.A43183>