On Nov 9, 2012, at 2:22 PM, John Ralls <jra...@ceridwen.us> wrote: > > On Nov 9, 2012, at 12:41 PM, "Derek Atkins" <de...@ihtfp.com> wrote: > >> John, >> >> On Fri, November 9, 2012 2:47 pm, John Ralls wrote: >>> >>> Any objections to converting all Timespecs to time_t64? (I decided that >>> time_t64 is clearer than gnc_time_t.) >> >> As opposed to time64_t? > > Maybe. There's int64_t in sys/types.h, but I don't know where (or if) that's > specified anywhere. But it's intuitively obvious that int64 means "64-bit > integer". Is time64 equally intuitive? > > OTOH, GLib sticks 64 (or 8, 16, or 32) on the end of base types (e.g. > gint64), and time_t is sort-of a base type. > > Shrug. Doesn't really matter, a single run of find can switch from one to the > other.
What if I split the difference and use "time64"? Regards, John Ralls _______________________________________________ gnucash-devel mailing list gnucash-devel@gnucash.org https://lists.gnucash.org/mailman/listinfo/gnucash-devel
