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

[Jim Meyering]

On Fri, Oct 27, 2017 at 9:33 PM, Jim Meyering <address@hidden> wrote:
> 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:

Pushed.