X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Date: Tue, 6 Mar 2007 14:18:27 +0100 From: Corinna Vinschen To: cygwin AT cygwin DOT com Subject: Re: st_birthtime Message-ID: <20070306131827.GJ24859@calimero.vinschen.de> Reply-To: cygwin AT cygwin DOT com Mail-Followup-To: cygwin AT cygwin DOT com References: <45ED65D9 DOT 80901 AT byu DOT net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <45ED65D9.80901@byu.net> User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.2.2i Mailing-List: contact cygwin-help AT cygwin DOT com; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , 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 Mar 6 06:00, Eric Blake wrote: > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- > Hash: SHA1 > > There is currently a thread on bug-gnulib about adding GNU tool support > for platforms that support st_birthtime in addition to st_atime, st_mtime, > and st_ctime. Since Windows has a notion of birthtime (in fact, since > Windows calls their birthtime attribute a 'creation time', leading to > several people's confusion over what ctime really means), is it worth > cygwin 1.7 adding st_birthtime support? I don't know if it's actually worth the effort, but it would be easily supportable in struct stat, given that we have spare room in struct stat of exactly the size of a timestruc_t, afaics. But, still, does it really make sense? How long will it take until st_birthtime will go into the standards, if at all? 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/