Use a different representation for Duration #16466
Comments
|
I'd like to work on this. |
ruuda
added a commit
to ruuda/rust
that referenced
this issue
Aug 20, 2014
This changes the internal representation of `Duration` from
days: i32,
secs: i32,
nanos: u32
to
secs: i64,
nanos: i32
This resolves rust-lang#16466. Some methods now take `i64` instead of `i32` due
to the increased range. Some methods, like `num_milliseconds`, now
return an `Option<i64>` instead of `i64`, because the range of
`Duration` is now larger than e.g. 2^63 milliseconds.
liigo
added a commit
to liigo/rust
that referenced
this issue
Aug 21, 2014
…type `i64` Closes rust-lang#16466. The return type of `to_tuple_64`, `num_milliseconds` etc. has been change too, so this change is [breaking-change]
bors
added a commit
that referenced
this issue
Aug 28, 2014
This changes the internal representation of `Duration` from
days: i32,
secs: i32,
nanos: u32
to
secs: i64,
nanos: i32
This resolves #16466. Note that `nanos` is an `i32` and not `u32` as suggested, because `i32` is easier to deal with, and it is not exposed anyway. Some methods now take `i64` instead of `i32` due to the increased range. Some methods, like `num_milliseconds`, now return an `Option<i64>` instead of `i64`, because the range of `Duration` is now larger than e.g. 2^63 milliseconds.
A few remarks:
- Negating `MIN` is impossible. I chose to return `MAX` as `-MIN`, but it is one nanosecond less than the actual negation. Is this the desired behaviour?
- In `std::io::timer`, some functions accept a `Duration`, which is internally converted into a number of milliseconds. However, the range of `Duration` is now larger than 2^64 milliseconds. There is already a FIXME in the file that this should be addressed (without a ticket number though). I chose to silently use 0 ms if the duration is too long. Is that right, as long as the backend still uses milliseconds?
- Negative durations are not formatted correctly, but they were not formatted correctly before either.
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
The
Durationtype introduced in #15934 looks likePer @kballard's [comment] this could be
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: