Coverity complained about possible overflow in expressions like
	intresult = tm->tm_sec * 1000000 + fsec;
on the grounds that the multiplication would happen in 32-bit
arithmetic before widening to the int64 result.  I think these
are all false positives because of the limited possible range of
tm_sec; but nonetheless it seems silly to spell it like that when
nearby lines have the identical computation written with a 64-bit
constant.

... or more accurately, with an LL constant, which is not project
style.  Make all of these use INT64CONST(), as we do elsewhere.

This is all new code from a2da77cd, so no need for back-patch.