On Mon, 15 Oct 2012 18:52:18 +0200, Ludovic Rousseau said: >I don't know why your code would be better. Maybe it is but you should >explain. > >One problem with your code is that the value used for the debug may >not be the value really used if an integer overflow occurs. >You log "timeout_ms" but the function then uses "(int)timeout_ms". > >I agree that if an integer overflow occurs we may have other problems. >And that would be a really big timeout (~24 days).
I see logging the 'long' as an advantage, because at least you have a better chance of seeing some huge value *before* you invoke implementation-defined behaviour of signed integer truncation. As you say, such a timeout would be so long it hardly matters. I don't much care. Cheers, -- ____________________________________________________________ Sean McBride, B. Eng s...@rogue-research.com Rogue Research www.rogue-research.com Mac Software Developer Montréal, Québec, Canada ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Don't let slow site performance ruin your business. Deploy New Relic APM Deploy New Relic app performance management and know exactly what is happening inside your Ruby, Python, PHP, Java, and .NET app Try New Relic at no cost today and get our sweet Data Nerd shirt too! http://p.sf.net/sfu/newrelic-dev2dev _______________________________________________ libusbx-devel mailing list libusbx-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/libusbx-devel
