Re: POSIX ruling on up-to-date vs. identical timestamps

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



On Tue, 2014-08-26 at 18:04 +0300, Eli Zaretskii wrote:
> > (I don't know why Windows doesn't, because NTFS does support
> > millisecond resolution timestamps I believe)
> 
> Because no one wrote the code, of course.

Ah, the oldest reason in free software :-).

> The main problem is that this requires to write a replacement 'stat'
> (not rocket science).

Can't we just #define stat(_p,_b) _stat(_p,_b)?  Not sure if that's
sufficient: I'm not overly familiar with the limitations on the POSIX
emulation functions in Windows.



_______________________________________________
Autoconf mailing list
Autoconf@xxxxxxx
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/autoconf




[Index of Archives]     [GCC Help]     [Kernel Discussion]     [RPM Discussion]     [Red Hat Development]     [Yosemite News]     [Linux USB]     [Samba]

  Powered by Linux