Re: Defect in XSH utimes

[Larry Dwyer <yyyyyyyyyyy@xxxxxx>]

At 04:12 PM 3/3/2006, Nick Stoughton wrote:
> > This is common existing practice (e.g., Solaris, GNU/Linux) and other
> > operating systems typically have a similar solution under different
> > names.  The existing st_atime etc. fields can overlap the new fields.
> > There may be a few older systems that put the timestamp parts in
> > wildly separate parts of struct stat for backwards-compatibility
> > purposes, but they can be upgraded with the usual linker magic.
> I agree. I was concerned about existing system that have the space in
> the structure, but permitting them to add the nanosecond fields at other
> spots. But in reality, you're right ... everyone has done it this way
> anyway, so lets standardize it!
I worry about this.  How do we know everyone has done it this way (it so 
happens that the HP-UX implementation is OK with this design, but what 
about the implementation we are overlooking?)  Can we get a more 
comprehensive investigation?

                Cheers,
                Larry


end
reply-id: wf2dkwirn4nwifn834dt7zyrqpmfdyyxdrhnwowe