Daniel Stenberg wrote:

> Now this may seem silly, but does anyone think it would be worth to
> check/bail out if you try setting a timeout that will overflow the long
> holding milliseconds? On 32 bit systems with a signed variable holding
> the value, the max is 2147483648 ms which equals 24.86 days.
>
> We didn't deal with this very nicely before either, since we multiply
> the timeout with 1000 in several places in the code, assuming that it
> will fit.
>
> I vote we just document that a timeout longer than 2147483 seconds won't
> work.

I'm fine with both ways.

Regards,

-- 
Michael