e...@thyrsus.com said: > The macros that are the API for the abstract data type are constructed to be > indifferent to whether the underlying concrete 64-bit type is signed or > unsigned. If I were willing to commit either way I could throw away several > of them in favor of bare arithmetic operations.
Do any of the casts actually change any bits? (as compared to kill compiler warnings) casting an int to/from float has to change bits. casting from signed to unsigned doesn't do that. What I was trying to suggest is that another layer of macros might eliminate a batch of casts. g...@rellim.com said: > From what I can tell, until 2038, l_fp never uses the top bit, except to > do sidewise fake at goping negative. I see no reason l_fp can not be > signed. We'll know soon.... Interesting. I thought we were discussing making the first argument to lfp_init unsigned. -------- Do any of the RFCs discuss the sign of the time stamps? -- These are my opinions. I hate spam. _______________________________________________ devel mailing list devel@ntpsec.org http://lists.ntpsec.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
