Yo Hal! On Wed, 26 Apr 2017 13:12:48 -0700 Hal Murray via devel <devel@ntpsec.org> wrote:
> Achim said:
> <> I think that should be rejected in favor of eliminating l_fp
> except at the
> >> very edge and doing the pivot at the edge.
> > What exactly do you suggest to replace it with?
>
> There are two uses for l_fp: time and offset.
>
> By pushing it to the edge, we eliminate uses as time.
Confusing the offset is also a time. Let's use timestamp and offset.
>
> I would be happy with a double for offsets.
>
> Gary wants a timespec to preserve accuracy.
Ugh, please, not what I meant. I see the confusion due to the sloppy
terminology.
Timestamps NEED to be l_fp (with ntp epoch number 0 or 1), or
timespec(64) to preserve full precision (232ps or 1 ns).
But I'm OK with doubles for offsets. If the offset is into many
years the nanosec will take care of themselves later.
So you start with two l_fp, or two timespec(64), or one of each. Then
subtract to get an offet as a timespec(64) or a double.
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
pgpoeYC54xbYx.pgp
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
_______________________________________________ devel mailing list devel@ntpsec.org http://lists.ntpsec.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
