From:	pjfarley AT banet DOT net (Peter J. Farley III)
Newsgroups:	comp.os.msdos.djgpp
Subject:	Re: Q: libc fstat: Why is st_ctime < st_atime == st_mtime after fopen?
Date:	Tue, 29 Aug 2000 13:35:24 GMT
Message-ID:	<39abbb59.806640@news3.banet.net>
References:	<Pine DOT SUN DOT 3 DOT 91 DOT 1000829084432 DOT 25491G-100000 AT is>
X-Newsreader:	Forte Free Agent 1.21/32.243
NNTP-Posting-Host:	32.100.77.244
X-Trace:	29 Aug 2000 13:34:23 GMT, 32.100.77.244
Organization:	Global Network Services - Remote Access Mail & News Services
Lines:	28
X-Complaints-To:	abuse AT prserv DOT net
To:	djgpp AT delorie DOT com
DJ-Gateway:	from newsgroup comp.os.msdos.djgpp
Reply-To:	djgpp AT delorie DOT com

Eli Zaretskii <eliz AT is DOT elta DOT co DOT il> wrote:
<Snipped>
>There *is* a reason, if you regard Windows bugs and misfeatures to be a 
>valid reason ;-).

Thanks, Eli.  I suspected as much, but just wanted to confirm it.

<Snipped>
>The DJGPP version needs a special treatment as well.  Careful testing 
>demonstrates that ctime might be behind mtime and the system clock by as 
>much as 3 seconds(!).  The port of GNU Make was printing spurious 
>warnings about clock time skew until such a change was introduced there 
>(that's how I first learned about this problem).

OK, I will send a patch to p5p to reflect this.

>My guess is that Windows does all those crazy things because ctime has a 
>100-nanosecond granularity, while mtime has a 2-second granularity.  So 
>they wanted to prevent the situation where ctime is later than mtime, but 
>their solution sucks, as always.

Of course! <Chuckle> Do they know any other way?

Thanks again.

----------------------------------------------------
Peter J. Farley III (pjfarley AT nospam DOT dorsai DOT org OR
                     pjfarley AT nospam DOT banet DOT net)

- Raw text -