Brian Pane wrote:
> Building upon Cliff's formulas, here's another idea
> for doing faster conversions of the current apr_time_t
> format to seconds:
>
> What we want is t/1000000
>
> What we can do easily is t/1048576
>
> But what can we add to t/1048576 to approximate t/1000000?
>
> If I solve for 'C' in
> t/1000000 = t/1048576 + t/C
> I get C= ~21,586,297
> That's not a power of 2, but what if use 2^24 (~16M) as an
> approximation:
>
> seconds = (t >> 20) + (t >> 24)
>
> That probably isn't accurate enough, but you get the basic idea:
> sum a couple of t/(2^n) terms to approximate t/1000000.
>
> What do you think?
I think you're all nuts. Are you seriously saying we compute time stuff
often enough to care how long it takes?
Cheers,
Ben.
--
http://www.apache-ssl.org/ben.html http://www.thebunker.net/
"There is no limit to what a man can do or how far he can go if he
doesn't mind who gets the credit." - Robert Woodruff