apr-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Brian Pane <bri...@apache.org>
Subject Re: Why not POSIX time_t?
Date Mon, 15 Jul 2002 19:58:33 GMT
Cliff Woolley wrote:

>On Mon, 15 Jul 2002, Cliff Woolley wrote:
>
>  
>
>>realsecs = 22/21 * (realusecs >> 20) + 22/21;
>>realsecs = 44/21 * (realusecs >> 20);
>>    
>>
>
>I'm obviously on crack.  :)
>
>That last line is of course totally wrong and shouldn't have been there.
>:)
>  
>

So what we really end up with is this, right?
    22 * ((realusecs >> 20) + 1) /21

That's promising, except that the numerator won't fit in
32 bits (22 times some time_t will be too large), so we'll
be stuck doing a 64-bit division again.

However, if we can find an alternate approximation that
works with 32-bit math, that might solve the problem.

--Brian




Mime
View raw message