lfpinit() signed or unsigned?

[Gary E. Miller]

Yo Hal!

On Thu, 09 Mar 2017 13:11:36 -0800
Hal Murray <hmurray at megapathdsl.net> wrote:

> gem at rellim.com said:
> > From what I can tell, until 2038, l_fp never uses the top bit,
> > except to do sidewise fake at goping negative.  I see no reason
> > l_fp can not be signed.  We'll know soon....   
> 
> Interesting.  I thought we were discussing making the first argument
> to lfp_init unsigned.

We were, and every place I can see lfpinit() used it is passed two
unints.  But then I started looking at why the output then needs to be
both signed and unsigned in a weird, unique and non-traditional fashion.

> Do any of the RFCs discuss the sign of the time stamps?

They assume positive, but then when we take offsets they can go negative.

RGDS
GARY
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Gary E. Miller Rellim 109 NW Wilmington Ave., Suite E, Bend, OR 97703
	gem at rellim.com  Tel:+1 541 382 8588

	    Veritas liberabit vos. -- Quid est veritas?
    "If you can’t measure it, you can’t improve it." - Lord Kelvin
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 488 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
URL: <https://lists.ntpsec.org/pipermail/devel/attachments/20170309/591dd5fe/attachment.bin>