Boost logo

Boost :

From: Jeff Garland (jeff_at_[hidden])
Date: 2003-05-19 09:02:10

On Mon, 19 May 2003 07:45:30 +0200 (MEST), Guillaume Melquiond wrote
> Did you really read the patch I propose?

Yes, I read it. That doesn't mean I fully grasped it :-)
> The original code does:
> check("nano tick calculations",
> nano_res::to_tick_count(0,1,0,0) == 60000000000);
> So there is an integer constant that exceeds a 32-bit integer. And
> as you said, this kind of code "has marginal portability". It's why
> I want to remove it from Boost and replace it by:
> boost::int64_t one_minute_nano = 60*1000*1000;
> one_minute_nano = one_minute_nano*1000;
> check("nano tick calculations",
> nano_res::to_tick_count(0,1,0,0) == one_minute_nano);
> So there is no more initialization and computation of values that exceeds
> a 32-bit integer. The code is now portable.

Yes, I see now. Somehow when I first read it I thought
the calculation would be a build time...
> > Bottom line is if it is the later and you really want to
> > commit this change I'd like you to take responsibility to
> > watch the regression tests after the commit and ensure
> > that the results have not changed as a result of the patch.
> As I explained in a previous mail, I propose this patch because it
> actually fixes a complaint of gcc in the regression tests.

I don't believe you mentioned this in your first mail...

>So I will commit this patch myself and I will take
>responsibility for it.

Sounds good, thanks. Sorry for not understanding the first time.


Boost list run by bdawes at, gregod at, cpdaniel at, john at