20 Feb
2025
20 Feb
'25
9:54 p.m.
On Thu Feb 20 21:50:43 2025 +0000, Rémi Bernon wrote:
Ah no, that's IMO a bit ugly. I meant rather something like that: ``` static struct timespec *get_next_timeout_ts( struct timespec *ts ) { /* ... */ if (next_timeout == -1) return NULL; ts->tv_sec = next_timeout / 10000000; ts->tv_nsec = (next_timeout % 10000000) * 100; return ts; } ``` I don't have enough experience to prefer either, but this looks good too, so I will change that.
-- https://gitlab.winehq.org/wine/wine/-/merge_requests/7392#note_95439