"Charles Kerr" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >> "Charles Kerr" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >>> >>>- const int diff_secs (std::max (1l, now-_time_started)); >>>+ const int diff_secs (std::max ((time_t)1, now-_time_started)); >>> >>>Smells like a more correct fix to me -- does it pass muster on BSD? >> >> Yeah, that's fine too (though I think the "smell" is the only >> conceivable difference:-). > >Until January 19, 2038. :)
Well, I must confess to not being well versed in C++ function overloading (nor C++ in general in fact), but I seriously doubt that it will make a difference even then, when we've hopefully had 64-bit time_t's for quite some years - i.e. I assume that the second arg will ensure that a max() with "big enough" args are chosen, and that the '1' will be promoted as needed. But this really is a dead horse... --Per _______________________________________________ Pan-users mailing list Pan-users@nongnu.org http://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/pan-users
