[9] RFR of 8069269: (spec) Defect in the System.nanoTime spec

Martin Buchholz martinrb at google.com
Fri Jan 23 22:16:04 UTC 2015

On Fri, Jan 23, 2015 at 1:20 PM, Brian Burkhalter <
brian.burkhalter at oracle.com> wrote:

> On Jan 23, 2015, at 1:10 PM, Martin Buchholz <martinrb at google.com> wrote:
> ---
> I don't see why switching t0 and t1 makes things more readable.
> It’s about accuracy. The previous version is incorrect in the overflow
> case (if we even care).
I don't get it.  t0 and t1 are supposed to be symmetrical (perhaps obtained
in different threads).
Switching them around doesn't change anything.  And correctness in the face
of two's complement numerical overflow is the whole point of the example!

More information about the core-libs-dev mailing list