Yo Hal! On Thu, 09 Mar 2017 13:11:36 -0800 Hal Murray <hmur...@megapathdsl.net> wrote:
> g...@rellim.com said:
> > From what I can tell, until 2038, l_fp never uses the top bit,
> > except to do sidewise fake at goping negative. I see no reason
> > l_fp can not be signed. We'll know soon....
>
> Interesting. I thought we were discussing making the first argument
> to lfp_init unsigned.
We were, and every place I can see lfpinit() used it is passed two
unints. But then I started looking at why the output then needs to be
both signed and unsigned in a weird, unique and non-traditional fashion.
> Do any of the RFCs discuss the sign of the time stamps?
They assume positive, but then when we take offsets they can go negative.
RGDS
GARY
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Gary E. Miller Rellim 109 NW Wilmington Ave., Suite E, Bend, OR 97703
g...@rellim.com Tel:+1 541 382 8588
Veritas liberabit vos. -- Quid est veritas?
"If you can’t measure it, you can’t improve it." - Lord Kelvin
pgpKqNnj0pJ19.pgp
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
_______________________________________________ devel mailing list devel@ntpsec.org http://lists.ntpsec.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
