Re: latest gcc vs lib/timespec.h:85

[Jim Meyering]

On Mon, Oct 2, 2017 at 6:31 PM, Paul Eggert <address@hidden> wrote:
> On 10/02/2017 06:24 PM, Jim Meyering wrote:
>>
>> Given all of the comments on that function, I'd be tempted to suppress
>> this warning in that function.
>
> That would work. Another possibility would be to include verify.h and add
> something like this to the start of timespec_cmp:
>
>   assume (-1 <= a.tv_nsec && a.tv_nsec <= 2 * TIMESPEC_RESOLUTION);
>
>   assume (-1 <= b.tv_nsec && b.tv_nsec <= 2 * TIMESPEC_RESOLUTION);
>
> We might be able to make these 'assume' calls fancier, to exactly match the
> comments, but I'm not sure it's worth the bother.

Thanks. I prefer that. Here's a proposed patch:

timespec-assure.diff
Description: Text document