On Sat, 25 Mar 2017, Hal Murray wrote: > [email protected] said: > > Oh, please, not more timespec crap. The timeval and timespec stuff was just > > a workaround for the lack of 64-bit integer support in C. Once you can > > count on 64-bit integers, then integer nanoseconds is a much cleaner format. > > A signed 64-bit nanosecond count has a range of +/- 292 years. > > Neat. Thanks. > > Any hints that POSIX is interested? Are there any library/packages or macros > that we can steal/use? (Much of the code I've been cleaning up is dealing > with system interfaces.)
I don't know, though even if POSIX picked this up, it would probably be past 2038 before one could generally count on it. :-) Nevertheless, it's a perfectly reasonable *internal* representation, with enough range and enough resolution to replace both time_t and timespec. Also, don't count on timespec suddenly switching to a 64-bit time_t. For compatibility reasons, I expect that at least some platforms will have both a "struct timespec" and a "struct timespec64" for some transitional period. Avoiding timespec for internal use lets issues of that form be confined to the OS interface, rather than spread through the code. Fred Wright _______________________________________________ devel mailing list [email protected] http://lists.ntpsec.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
