apr-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "William A. Rowe, Jr." <wr...@rowe-clan.net>
Subject Re: apr_time_t --> apr_time_usec_t
Date Mon, 10 Jun 2002 23:11:25 GMT
At 05:04 PM 6/10/2002, you wrote:
>I am tired of seeing this stupid change to the semantics of time_t
>under Unix continue to cause bugs in every project that uses APR.

I must have missed that discussion traveling.  Pointers please?

>apr_time_t must be in seconds.  If folks want APR to keep time in
>microseconds, then they had bloody well change the type name
>accordingly.

apr_time_t must nothing :-)  Let's discuss *should(s)*

time_t is seconds.  I love the idea of apr_time_usec_t and apr_time_sec_t
names rather that something as ambigous as apr_time_t (which is misleading,
I agree.)

As far as adopting apr_time_sec_t throughout, you may be looking forward
to your retirement party before a signed 32 bit apr_time_sec_t blows chunks.
Having coded against Y2K since 1989, I'd absolutely veto this suggestion
for general adoption.  Specific cases, fine.

>I know of one existing bug in httpd that I would consider a
>showstopper, if I were RM, due to the way APR handles time.
>In order to fix it, I am going to need to reinstate handling
>of time in seconds, even if that means abandoning APR's routines.

Please share, I'm certain a few more pairs of eyes could prove useful.

++1 on distinguishing apr_time_t to be more meaningful, though!



Mime
View raw message