On 03Feb2008 14:13, mark <m.roth2006@xxxxxxx> wrote: | krishnaakishore@xxxxxxxxx wrote: | > @Bruke: I don't think that is what he is referring to. The problem was | > with preserving timestamps when the copy is being made. | > | > It has got something to do with struct timespec, struct timeval usage | > may be. Just a guess. | | Here's a thought: could the cp be 32-bit code, and the timestamp struct shown | by ls be 64-bit? The time differences were well less than one second. UNIX generally uses 32 bit seconds, so you'd expect Unless you're talking about the sub-second component being in 32 bits, which would still suffice for nanoseconds. A quick glance inside time.h shows a "struct timeval" with goes to microseconds and a "struct timespec" that goes to nanoseconds. If different code paths use each then this could readily produce the behaviour reported. For example, if "cp" is using a struct timeval to copy the time from the original file to the new one. Cheers, -- Cameron Simpson <cs@xxxxxxxxxx> DoD#743 http://www.cskk.ezoshosting.com/cs/ -- redhat-list mailing list unsubscribe mailto:redhat-list-request@xxxxxxxxxx?subject=unsubscribe https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/redhat-list
