[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: latest gcc vs lib/timespec.h:85
From: |
Jim Meyering |
Subject: |
Re: latest gcc vs lib/timespec.h:85 |
Date: |
Fri, 27 Oct 2017 21:33:41 -0700 |
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