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

[Martin Buchholz]

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!