On Wed, Dec 19, 2012 at 1:54 AM, Poul-Henning Kamp <p...@phk.freebsd.dk> wrote: > -------- > In message <1355873265.1198.183.ca...@revolution.hippie.lan>, Ian Lepore > writes > : >>On Tue, 2012-12-18 at 23:58 +0100, Luigi Rizzo wrote: > >>I'm not so sure about the 2^k precision. You speak of seconds, but I >>would be worrying about sub-second precision in my work. > > It is a bad idea, and it is physically pointless, given the stabilities > of the timebases available for computers in general. > > Please just take my word as a time-nut, and use a 32.32 binary format > in seconds (see previous email) and be done with it. > > -- > Poul-Henning Kamp | UNIX since Zilog Zeus 3.20 > p...@freebsd.org | TCP/IP since RFC 956 > FreeBSD committer | BSD since 4.3-tahoe > Never attribute to malice what can adequately be explained by incompetence.
Right now -- the precision is specified in 'bintime', which is a binary number. It's not 32.32, it's 32.64 or 64.64 depending on the size of time_t in the specific platform. I do not really think it worth to create another structure for handling time (e.g. struct bintime32), as it will lead to code duplication for all the basic conversion/math operation. On the other hand, 32.32 may not be enough in the long future. What do you think about that? Thanks, Davide _______________________________________________ freebsd-current@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-current To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-current-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"
