Re: [boost] Re: Boost.Threads - Open Questions from the Review

From: Scott McCaskill (scott_at_[hidden])
Date: 2001-09-17 13:16:53

timeconv.inl, line 26

----- Original Message -----
From: "William Kempf" <williamkempf_at_[hidden]>
To: <boost_at_[hidden]>
Sent: Monday, September 17, 2001 8:59 AM
Subject: [boost] Re: Boost.Threads - Open Questions from the Review

> 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
> >>that
> ?> 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.
> >Is
> >there any reason why they should not be unsigned?  I changed these
> > >variables
> >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.
>
> Bill Kempf
>
> _________________________________________________________________
> Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp
>
>
> Info: http://www.boost.org  Unsubscribe:
<mailto:boost-unsubscribe_at_[hidden]>
>
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
>
>
>