On Jan 25, 2014, at 5:49 AM, Gary Bilkus <m...@gary.bilkus.com> wrote:
> On 24/01/2014 17:08, Derek Atkins wrote: >> John Ralls <jra...@ceridwen.us> writes: >> >>> if (sizeof(time_t) == 8) >>> return (double)((int64)time1 - (int64)time2); >>> else >>> return (double)((int32)time1 - (int32)time2); >> This code probably wouldn't compile cleanly. It would complain about >> casting to different sizes. Even though theoretically the compiler >> should be able to optimize the branch by noticing that it is always true >> or always false, it will still complain about the unused branch. (I >> know this from personal experience). >> >>> That could be done as a macro and inserted into one of the header >>> files in each library. >>> >>> Regards, >>> John Ralls >> -derek >> > Given that time_t is always a signed integer value, wouldn't > > return (double)(time1-time2) > > just work anyway, at least as far as a patch for mingw is concerned? Only if the binary never leaves the machine on which it was compiled. The problem arises when the program compiled with one size of time_t is run with an msvcrt with the other size. Keith Mashall explains it pretty clearly in the second and third emails in that thread I cited a couple of days ago. Regards, John Ralls _______________________________________________ gnucash-devel mailing list gnucash-devel@gnucash.org https://lists.gnucash.org/mailman/listinfo/gnucash-devel
