> Let's use timestamp and offset. Good suggestion. Thanks.
> But I'm OK with doubles for offsets. If the offset is into many years the > nanosec will take care of themselves later. Ahh. Good. > 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. My expectation is that timestamps would never leave the front end. The subtracts and pivot would happen there resulting in an offset. There is a back door for l_fp and/or timestamps. That's ntpq. We may have to convert offsets back to l_fp for backward compatibility with old ntpq. There may be some timestamps saved that I don't know about. If they are used for other than ntpq then they will need timespec. -- These are my opinions. I hate spam. _______________________________________________ devel mailing list devel@ntpsec.org http://lists.ntpsec.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
