Mailing-List:	contact cygwin-help AT sourceware DOT cygnus DOT com; run by ezmlm
List-Subscribe:	<mailto:cygwin-subscribe AT sources DOT redhat DOT com>
List-Archive:	<http://sources.redhat.com/ml/cygwin/>
List-Post:	<mailto:cygwin AT sources DOT redhat DOT com>
List-Help:	<mailto:cygwin-help AT sources DOT redhat DOT com>, <http://sources.redhat.com/ml/#faqs>
Sender:	cygwin-owner AT sources DOT redhat DOT com
Delivered-To:	mailing list cygwin AT sources DOT redhat DOT com
Message-Id:	<4.3.1.2.20010713164445.01658888@pop.ma.ultranet.com>
X-Sender:	lhall AT pop DOT ma DOT ultranet DOT com
X-Mailer:	QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 4.3.1
Date:	Fri, 13 Jul 2001 16:50:54 -0400
To:	Randall R Schulz <rrschulz AT cris DOT com>, cygwin AT cygwin DOT com
From:	"Larry Hall (RFK Partners, Inc)" <lhall AT rfk DOT com>
Subject:	Re: File timestamp not updated by writes with current snapshot?
In-Reply-To:	<5.1.0.14.2.20010713134233.02524e20@pop3.cris.com>
References:	<4 DOT 3 DOT 1 DOT 2 DOT 20010713162617 DOT 016af9d0 AT pop DOT ma DOT ultranet DOT com>
	<20010713200503 DOT 10625 DOT qmail AT lizard DOT curl DOT com>
Mime-Version:	1.0

Yes, timestamp resolution is better on the NT family.  AFAIK, its not tied 
to the filesystem per se.  I'm not sure where Jonathan tried his test but
I tried mine on W2K/NTFS.

Larry
  
At 04:44 PM 7/13/2001, Randall R Schulz wrote:
>Larry,
>
>Isn't the filesystem timestamp resolution much higher in NTFS compared to the FAT family?
>
>Randy
>
>
>At 13:33 2001-07-13, you wrote:
>>At 04:05 PM 7/13/2001, Jonathan Kamens wrote:
>> >I updated my winsup sources from the CVS repository yesterday and
>> >built cygwin1.dll.  Using the new cygwin1.dll, I'm seeing something
>> >I've never seen before, so I suspect it is somehow related to the DLL,
>> >which is why I'm reporting it here.  Basically, a file's timestamp
>> >isn't being updated, despite the fact that data is being added to the
>> >end of it, until after it's closed.  Observe:
>> >
>> >$ (echo foo; ls -l foo 1>&2; sleep 60; echo foo; ls -l foo 1>&2) > foo
>> >-rwxr-xr-x   1 curlbot  Administ        4 Jul 13 16:00 foo
>> >-rwxr-xr-x   1 curlbot  Administ        8 Jul 13 16:00 foo
>> >$ ls -l foo
>> >-rwxr-xr-x   1 curlbot  Administ        8 Jul 13 16:01 foo
>> >$
>> >
>> >The second ls output line above should say 16:01 but doesn't.
>> >
>> >Is this behavior known?  Is it intentional?
>>
>>
>>Windows has trouble with times/date resolution.  In that respect, this is known.  What DLL did you update from?  I see it with 1.3.2 and 1.1.8.
>>
>>
>>Larry Hall


--
Unsubscribe info:      http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple
Bug reporting:         http://cygwin.com/bugs.html
Documentation:         http://cygwin.com/docs.html
FAQ:                   http://cygwin.com/faq/

- Raw text -