Volker Lendecke Volker.Lendecke at SerNet.DE
Thu Mar 10 04:28:08 MST 2011

On Thu, Mar 10, 2011 at 10:05:37PM +1100, tridge at samba.org wrote:
> We could filter it so we only see the NTTIME/time_t ones if you would
> prefer that. It depends how many there are of the others.

That might be an option then I guess.

>  > The round-trip time there is just too high. Doing some waf magic on
>  > top of the structure approach is probably very worthwile too.
> I think its worth investigating the filtering approach and autobuild
> rules. I know we have had bugs between NTTIME and time_t, which is why
> you started on this, but I'd be surprised if the rate we introduce new
> bugs of this type is high. The key is to ensure that we don't get any
> new ones in the tree. We can do that in autobuild, and not pay any
> price in terms of code complexity or runtime overhead.

I don't think that doing the struct approach adds either
code complexity or runtime overhead. We can even make the
struct based macros a -DDEVELOPER only thing if you worry
that the direct structures add code beyond a simple
assignment of a uint64_t.

Regarding the required explicit "casts": Yes, I do want
those so that the developer is aware what is happening here.

With best regards,


SerNet GmbH, Bahnhofsallee 1b, 37081 Göttingen
phone: +49-551-370000-0, fax: +49-551-370000-9
AG Göttingen, HRB 2816, GF: Dr. Johannes Loxen

More information about the samba-technical mailing list