Email List: Xaustin-review-lX
[All Lists]

Re: Defect in XSH utimes

To: Nick Stoughton <yyyy@xxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: Defect in XSH utimes
From: Paul Eggert <yyyyyy@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Fri, 03 Mar 2006 19:55:24 -0800
Cc: yyyyyyyyyyyyyyy@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
References: <200603031846.SAA20757@xxxxxx><87irqvozz4.fsf@xxxxxx><1141431168.23855.136.camel@collie>
Nick Stoughton <yyyy@xxxxxxxxxx> writes:

> While discussing this in Ottawa with Ulrich Drepper and Don Cragun, the
> problem is that there is existing practice (in Solaris 10) for
> futimesat() with timeval rather than timespec. 

Well, POSIX has in the past done minor adjustments for sanity's sake,
and this should count as a minor adjustment.

If the Solaris futimesat() interface is carved in stone, then we could
call the variant with struct timespec 'utimesat', as H. Peter Anvin
suggested (as the leading 'f' is somewhat weird anyway).  The basic
idea is not a POSIX invention, so the "posix_" prefix seems overkill
here.

It's no big deal of course -- I'd like to have this function, with
working nanoseconds, under any name.

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>