Thanks for the correction; I was remembering the bad old days when min_time was a time_t. So...in the present day, the "dayoff" code is, as you noted, a no-op on systems where longs are 32 bits. It is still needed on systems where longs are 64 bits. And since "sizeof" can't be used in "#if" directives, conditionalizing (to get rid of the dead code warning) isn't as easy as we might like. @dashdashado On Tue, Mar 5, 2013 at 10:11 PM, Christos Zoulas <christos@zoulas.com>wrote:
On Mar 5, 10:05pm, arthurdavidolson@gmail.com (Arthur David Olson) wrote: -- Subject: Re: [tz] dead code in zic
| While the code in question can surely be improved, it wasn't/isn't a no-op | on systems where both time_t's and long's were/are 32-bit entities.
It might not have been when zic_t was a time_t (if it ever was), but it is a no-op now because zic_t is int_fast64_t. If time_t is 32 or 64 is not relevant to the particular comparison.
| The code in question dates back to when "long" was the longest integer type | available with all compilers ("long long" was not universal then).
Yes, but things have changed and the code can be made more portable and work better across a wider set of platforms.
christos