From: William Kempf (williamkempf_at_[hidden])
Date: 2001-09-17 08:59:45
From: "Scott McCaskill" <scott_at_[hidden]>
>>--- In boost_at_y..., Jens Maurer <Jens.Maurer_at_g...> wrote:
>> > - xtime.hpp uses "boost/stdint.h", which is deprecated
>> >and fails with como on my Linux box. Use "boost/cstdint.hpp"
>> >instead (need to fix uintXX_t usage in the code as well).
>>I don't understand the part in parens above. xtime.hpp uses int_fastXX_t
>>types but not uintXX_t types, and I don't know of anything in the usage
?> needs fixed.
>Not sure if this is what the OP was talking about, but gcc produces
>signed/unsigned warnings because xtime::sec and xtime::nsec are >signed.
>there any reason why they should not be unsigned? I changed these
>to be unsigned types in my local copy to eliminate the warnings.
Yes, there's a reason for them being signed. It allows you to have dates
prior to the epoch. Where do signed/unsigned warnings occur? My compiler,
even at level 4, doesn't indicate any such problems.
Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk