[ENet-discuss] time.h

[Nuno Silva]

Sorry for double-messaging, but i need to rephrase what i said: unsigned int
has twice as many possible values than signed int and a signed int would
cause overflows more often than unsigned int.

On Thu, Jul 22, 2010 at 4:09 PM, Nuno Silva <little.coding.fox at gmail.com>wrote:

> Problem is that unsigned int has more storage for positive values than
> signed int (by about half), not to mention all time libraries and
> specifications go with unsigned values too.
>
> On Thu, Jul 22, 2010 at 4:02 PM, Stefan Ludewig <
> stefan.ludewig at exitgames.com> wrote:
>
>>  Hi all.
>>
>>
>>
>> What is the reason enet uses unsigned int and these time overflow macros
>> in time.h?
>>
>> I enet would simply use signed int, these macros would not be needed at
>> all.
>>
>> For example if we have a time INT_MAX and a second one INT_MIN , 1ms
>> later, directly after the overflow, INT_MIN-INT_MAX would result in the
>> correct difference 1 and INT_MAX-INT_MIN in the correct difference -1. No
>> need for the use of ENET_TIME_DIFFERENCE at all for signed int.
>>
>> On the other hand, if we call ENET_TIME_DIFFERENCE(a, b) with a==1 and
>> b==2, the result is b-a -> 1, although the correct result would have been
>> -1.
>>
>> If some functions need unsigned times or return unsigned times, you could
>> simply them from/to signed int, and all would be fine.
>>
>> So I do not see any advantage in using unsigned int and time.h macros
>> instead of simply use signed int. Can you tell me the reasons for the
>> unsigned + time.h solution?
>>
>>
>>
>> Thx,
>>
>> Stefan.
>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> ENet-discuss mailing list
>> ENet-discuss at cubik.org
>> http://lists.cubik.org/mailman/listinfo/enet-discuss
>>
>>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.cubik.org/pipermail/enet-discuss/attachments/20100722/f96733e7/attachment.html>