[tz] dead code in zic
Arthur David Olson
arthurdavidolson at gmail.com
Wed Mar 6 04:53:23 UTC 2013
Thanks for the correction; I was remembering the bad old days when min_time
was a time_t.
So...in the present day, the "dayoff" code is, as you noted, a no-op on
systems where longs are 32 bits.
It is still needed on systems where longs are 64 bits. And since "sizeof"
can't be used in "#if" directives,
conditionalizing (to get rid of the dead code warning) isn't as easy as we
On Tue, Mar 5, 2013 at 10:11 PM, Christos Zoulas <christos at zoulas.com>wrote:
> On Mar 5, 10:05pm, arthurdavidolson at gmail.com (Arthur David Olson) wrote:
> -- Subject: Re: [tz] dead code in zic
> | While the code in question can surely be improved, it wasn't/isn't a
> | on systems where both time_t's and long's were/are 32-bit entities.
> It might not have been when zic_t was a time_t (if it ever was), but it is
> a no-op now because zic_t is int_fast64_t. If time_t is 32 or 64 is not
> relevant to the particular comparison.
> | The code in question dates back to when "long" was the longest integer
> | available with all compilers ("long long" was not universal then).
> Yes, but things have changed and the code can be made more portable and
> work better across a wider set of platforms.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the tz