X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org
Date: Sun, 30 Jul 2006 15:42:29 +0200
From: Corinna Vinschen <corinna-cygwin AT cygwin DOT com>
To: cygwin AT cygwin DOT com
Subject: Re: 1.5.21: file timestamp not updated after editing
Message-ID: <20060730134229.GD8152@calimero.vinschen.de>
Reply-To: cygwin AT cygwin DOT com
Mail-Followup-To: cygwin AT cygwin DOT com
References: <89b7ca960607291929u28fd2020kcc0dc399dbf9d5e1 AT mail DOT gmail DOT com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <89b7ca960607291929u28fd2020kcc0dc399dbf9d5e1@mail.gmail.com>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.2i
Mailing-List: contact cygwin-help AT cygwin DOT com; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:cygwin-unsubscribe-archive-cygwin=delorie DOT com AT cygwin DOT com>
List-Subscribe: <mailto:cygwin-subscribe AT cygwin DOT com>
List-Archive: <http://sourceware.org/ml/cygwin/>
List-Post: <mailto:cygwin AT cygwin DOT com>
List-Help: <mailto:cygwin-help AT cygwin DOT com>, <http://sourceware.org/ml/#faqs>
Sender: cygwin-owner AT cygwin DOT com
Mail-Followup-To: cygwin AT cygwin DOT com
Delivered-To: mailing list cygwin AT cygwin DOT com

On Jul 29 19:29, Alex Eng wrote:
> After editing a file, the timestamp on the file (according to ls -l)
> is unchanged.  However if stat <filename> is executed, the change
> timestamp given in the output differs from that given in ls -l:
> 
> $ ls -l foo.c
> -rw-r--r-- 1 Alex 126 Jul 29 17:10 foo.c
> $ nano foo.c
> ### File is edited and saved ###
> $ ls -l foo.c
> -rw-r--r-- 1 Alex 289 Jul 29 17:10 foo.c
> $ stat foo.c
>  File: `foo.c'
>  Size: 289             Blocks: 1          IO Block: 1024   regular file
> Device: a8dc98beh/2833029310d   Inode: 562949953426654  Links: 1
> Access: (0644/-rw-r--r--)  Uid: ( 1004/    Alex)   Gid: (  513/    None)
> Access: 2006-07-29 18:19:09.921875000 -0700
> Modify: 2006-07-29 17:10:44.531250000 -0700
> Change: 2006-07-29 18:19:15.828125000 -0700

I can't reproduce this problem at all.  Assuming nano changes the file
in place, opposed to editors like vim, which recreate the file on write,
then a simple open/write/close like this:

  #include <stdio.h>
  #include <errno.h>
  #include <sys/fcntl.h>

  int
  main (int argc, char **argv)
  {
    int fd = open (argv[1], O_WRONLY);
    if (fd < 0)
      {
	fprintf (stderr, "open(%s): %d <%s>\n",
		 argv[1], errno, strerror (errno));
	return 1;
      }
    --argc; ++argv;
    while (--argc > 0)
      {
	++argv;
	write (fd, *argv, strlen (*argv));
      }
    close (fd);
    return 0;
  }

would have the same effect.  It hasn't, at least not in my testing.
Is there a chance that you're suffering from a malice virus scanner?


Corinna

-- 
Corinna Vinschen                  Please, send mails regarding Cygwin to
Cygwin Project Co-Leader          cygwin AT cygwin DOT com
Red Hat

--
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/