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]>
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
> >>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
> > >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
> 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:
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk