[Dnsmasq-discuss] (no subject)

[Simon Kelley]

Jan 'RedBully' Seiffert wrote:

> 
>>It's a pity there isn't a way to do that portably without involving FP.
>>
> 
> Hmmm, sigh, yes, there's cleanly a gap (i mean, that's a quite common
> task and a double for this??...). On the other hand, what return type
> should a standard choose given that time_t can be complex/large...

A function that just does time order of two time_t arguments and returns 
-1, 0, 1 for "time1 before time2", "time1 equals time2", "time1 after 
time2" would be good. For systems where time_t is an integral type, it 
wouldn't need FP, but it would still work where time_t is a floating type.


Cheers,

Simon.