On Tue, 2024-07-16 at 13:54 +0200, Peter Hilber wrote: > On 08.07.24 11:27, David Woodhouse wrote: > > + > > + /* > > + * Time according to time_type field above. > > + */ > > + uint64_t time_sec; /* Seconds since time_type epoch */ > > + uint64_t time_frac_sec; /* (seconds >> 64) */ > > + uint64_t time_esterror_picosec; /* (± picoseconds) */ > > + uint64_t time_maxerror_picosec; /* (± picoseconds) */ > > Is this unsigned or signed? The field itself is unsigned, as it provides the absolute value of the error (which can be in either direction). Probably better just to drop the ± from the comment. Julien is now back from vacation and I'm expecting to see his opinion on whether we can change that to nanoseconds for consistency.
Attachment:
smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature
