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: cvs commit: apr-site versioning.html
Date Thu, 15 Aug 2002 20:13:16 GMT
At 02:02 PM 8/13/2002, Jim Jagielski wrote:
>At 2:54 PM -0400 8/13/02, rbb@apache.org wrote:
> >I continue to state that APR's time format should stay as it is.  If you
> >want seconds, use time_t.  The only change that I can see as appropriate,
> >is to make the interval_time_t a 32-bit value, which would mean that any
> >arithmetic on the intervals would be faster.
>Agreed here as well (regarding making the interval a 32 bit).

Let's stay really clear here.

   an apr_time_interval_t needs to continue to usec precision.  A 32 bit
   number gives you +/- 34 seconds.  Has to continue to be 64 bits in
   the general case.

   a time_interval of seconds could be 32 bit.  But why create another
   type, or force it's precision?  Using int(s) as the delta of time_t(s)
   makes more sense to me.

The machine's int arithmetic should be the fastest thing available, so
using a straight int for sec time_t deltas is the obvious answer.


View raw message