Cliff Woolley wrote:
On Mon, 15 Jul 2002, Brian Pane wrote:
seconds = (t >> 20) + (t >> 24)
That probably isn't accurate enough, but you get the basic idea: sum a couple of t/(2^n) terms to approximate t/1000000.
What do you think?
Sounds like the right idea. But I'm still not sure this isn't too
complicated. ;-]
At least this localizes the complexity, though: instead of a redesign of the time representation, we'd just need a new macro for retrieving seconds. If that macro looks like #define apr_macro_name_TBD(t) "(t >> 20) + (t >> 24) + (2 >> 29)" (or whatever the right series might be), it's still less complicated than many of the other designs we've been considering.
--Brian
