On 10/17/17 16:58, Stefan Dösinger wrote:
Am 2017-10-13 um 09:46 schrieb Piotr Caban:
It looks like the function should be treating negative time differences in special way. Except of that it seems to be ignoring overflows. I think that following code is much easier to read. Is something like this working for you?
Your code looks more elegant than mine for sure, and I believe it should work. I'll double check it with WGC to be on the safe side.
Your patch works for my tests and WGC. You forgot to define NANOSEC_PER_SEC though.
I'd propose that you send your patch and I'll resubmit my tests with the LONGLONG constant fix. Does that work for you?
Yes, I've sent the patch.
Thanks, Piotr