Mailing-List: contact cygwin-help@cygwin.com; run by ezmlm List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: cygwin-owner@cygwin.com Mail-Followup-To: cygwin@cygwin.com Delivered-To: mailing list cygwin@cygwin.com Date: Thu, 17 Feb 2005 13:42:53 +0100 From: Corinna Vinschen To: cygwin@cygwin.com Subject: Re: more ctime bugs Message-ID: <20050217124253.GU2597@cygbert.vinschen.de> Reply-To: cygwin@cygwin.com Mail-Followup-To: cygwin@cygwin.com References: <020920052127.27398.420A803A0009BD7500006B0622007507440A050E040D0C079D0A@comcast.net> <20050211093508.GB27256@cygbert.vinschen.de> <420CBCE6.60603@byu.net> <20050211142542.GE2597@cygbert.vinschen.de> <20050217123125.GT2597@cygbert.vinschen.de> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20050217123125.GT2597@cygbert.vinschen.de> User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.2i On Feb 17 13:31, Corinna Vinschen wrote: > On Feb 13 04:30, Eric Blake wrote: > > I see the new has_changed flag in the 20050211 snapshot. But you still have to > > add a call to touch_ctime() within the stat() family of calls if has_changed is > > set, in order to comply with the required semantics; stat and lstat are not > > allowed to return out-of-date timestamps. > > You know that this contradicts the target to maintain speed on write? > It's not done with adding a call to touch_ctime() to fstat, because > that only affects the application which also has written to the file. > If I read SUSv3 correctly, any call to stat/fstat/lstat on the file > by any application would require to update the timestamp. That's no > fun. I'm willing to simply ignore this. I've called touch_ctime in fstat nevertheless. It's a first approximation. Corinna -- Corinna Vinschen Please, send mails regarding Cygwin to Cygwin Project Co-Leader mailto:cygwin@cygwin.com Red Hat, Inc. -- Unsubscribe info: http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple Problem reports: http://cygwin.com/problems.html Documentation: http://cygwin.com/docs.html FAQ: http://cygwin.com/faq/