Re: warnings: 'NANOSECOND' macro redefined

2017-03-15 Thread Gary E. Miller
Yo Hal! On Wed, 15 Mar 2017 14:32:50 -0700 Hal Murray wrote: > g...@rellim.com said: > > I'm gonna go with this for now, it seems pretty hard to > > misunderstand: #define NS_PER_S 10 > > #define S_PER_NS 1e-9 > > DItto for other units. > > Looks good to me. I'm half done with the co

Re: warnings: 'NANOSECOND' macro redefined

2017-03-15 Thread Hal Murray
g...@rellim.com said: > I'm gonna go with this for now, it seems pretty hard to misunderstand: > #define NS_PER_S 10 > #define S_PER_NS 1e-9 > DItto for other units. Looks good to me. An alternative hack is to undef NANOSECOND in the top of timespecops.h #include "ntp_calendar.h" #inc

Re: warnings: 'NANOSECOND' macro redefined

2017-03-15 Thread Gary E. Miller
Yo Hal! I'm gonna go with this for now, it seems pretty hard to misunderstand: #define NS_PER_S 10 #define S_PER_NS 1e-9 DItto for other units. I see no preactical reason for a fefine of 1e9 as NS_PER_S will do fine for that too. RGDS GARY --

Re: warnings: 'NANOSECOND' macro redefined

2017-03-15 Thread Achim Gratz
Gary E. Miller writes: >> They don't. Integer and floating point constants are different. > > But in this case the defines are the reciprocals of each other. Very > bad collision. I was responding to Hal's apparent assertion that NANOSECONDS defined as 10 and 1.e9 were the same number.

Re: warnings: 'NANOSECOND' macro redefined

2017-03-15 Thread Gary E. Miller
Yo Achim! On Wed, 15 Mar 2017 19:31:43 +0100 Achim Gratz wrote: > Hal Murray writes: > > They all duplicate stuff already defined in timespecops.h > > They don't. Integer and floating point constants are different. But in this case the defines are the reciprocals of each other. Very bad co

Re: warnings: 'NANOSECOND' macro redefined

2017-03-15 Thread Achim Gratz
Hal Murray writes: > They all duplicate stuff already defined in timespecops.h They don't. Integer and floating point constants are different. > I assume the compiler doesn't complain about redefines if the result doesn't > change. The gcc preprocessor does it that way, yes. It's considered a

Re: warnings: 'NANOSECOND' macro redefined

2017-03-15 Thread Achim Gratz
Gary E. Miller writes: > So, any preferences for different and dsescription names that > do not conflict with the misleading *BSD names? Use a namespace specific to NTP(sec) for all defines. *ducks* Regards, Achim. -- +<[Q+ Matrix-12 WAVE#46+305 Neuron microQkb Andromeda XTk Blofeld]>+ Factory

Re: warnings: 'NANOSECOND' macro redefined

2017-03-14 Thread Hal Murray
g...@rellim.com said: > So, any preferences for different and dsescription names that do not > conflict with the misleading *BSD names? I don't have any good suggestions. I'd probably try a functional notation: x = sec2ns(y) It needs another something to distinguish integers from floating poi

Re: warnings: 'NANOSECOND' macro redefined

2017-03-14 Thread Gary E. Miller
Yo Hal! On Tue, 14 Mar 2017 20:28:40 -0700 Hal Murray wrote: > ../../include/timespecops.h:65:9: warning: 'NANOSECOND' macro > redefined [-Wmacro-redefined] > > NetBSD: > /usr/include/sys/timex.h:#define NANOSECOND 10L /* > nanoseconds in one second */ > > FreeBSD: > /usr/include/s

warnings: 'NANOSECOND' macro redefined

2017-03-14 Thread Hal Murray
../../include/timespecops.h:65:9: warning: 'NANOSECOND' macro redefined [-Wmacro-redefined] NetBSD: /usr/include/sys/timex.h:#define NANOSECOND 10L /* nanoseconds in one second */ FreeBSD: /usr/include/sys/timex.h:#define NANOSECOND 10L /* nanoseconds in one second */