Re: kern/49207

[christos%zoulas.com@localhost (Christos Zoulas)]

On Sep 27, 10:55pm, n54%gmx.com@localhost ("Kamil Rytarowski") wrote:
-- Subject: Re: kern/49207

| Hello,
| 
| Quick questions to make it clear:
| 1. Just to be sure. Is the extraction of these constants from clock_subr.h a good idea?

I don't know; historically I've seen them defined in many places with
different names. I guess it is an improvement to put them all in one place.

| 2. After changing the macro names to longer forms. Is it a good idea to add compatibility defines in clock_subr.h? This way:
| #define SECMIN SECONDS_PER_MINUTE

I don't see why. It is not an API.

| 3. Can I assume that with going back for the multiplication convention a user knows seconds per day (to be honest I never remembered it before :-) ). In other words, is the anti-16-bit-int campaign desired? Actually I believe that a good compiler will catch overflow immediately (clang, gcc).

I personally would not worry about it. If you are using 16 bits for seconds,
you should know you are going to get into trouble quickly :-)

christos