[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index][Old Index]
Sep 27, 7:20pm, n54%gmx.com@localhost ("Kamil Rytarowski") wrote:
Subject: Re: kern/49207
As I mentioned before compatibility with poorly name constants is not
SECLYR? Really? Is this the 80's? Isn't SECONDS_IN_LEAP_YEAR a lot better?
Also each time I will look at 31536000, I'd be tempted to divide
by 365 to see if it is correct. It is not like the compiler will
sweat over computing these, and they are not human friendly. I will
leave the multiplications in.
+#define IS_LEAP_YEAR(year) ((((year) % 4) == 0 && ((year) % 100) != 0) || ((year%400)) == 0)
+/* Some handy constants. */
+#define SECMIN 60
+#define SECHOUR 3600
+#define SECDAY 86400
+#define DAYSYR(year) (IS_LEAP_YEAR(year) ? 366 : 365)
+#define SECYR 31536000 /* common year */
+#define SECLYR 31622400 /* leap year */
+#define SECYEAR(year) (DAYSYR(year) * SECDAY)
+/* Traditional POSIX base year */
+#define POSIX_BASE_YEAR 1970
+#endif /* _SYS_CLOCK_H_ */
End of excerpt from "Kamil Rytarowski"
Main Index |
Thread Index |