Re: coreutils patch to port to hosts lacking fsync

[Matthew Woehlke]

Jim Meyering wrote:
> Thanks, but I'd prefer to skip this change, unless there is a
> reasonably modern portability target that lacks the fsync function.
> I think of this as an opportunity to avoid adding infrastructure
> (and #ifdefs) that may never be used :-)
>
> We know how hard it is to remove such bits once they've been added.

Ah, yes, the rule of laziness. :-) Since I was remembering wrong, I 
don't care either way. I just thought it was already committed, but I 
don't need it committed (nor mind if it is reverted, if it was).

sync() however /is/ missing from NSK and also (at least as my original 
bug report indicated) Interix. Since it is new as of 2003 at the latest 
(and possibly Vista), I think SUA can be considered "a modern 'system'". :-)

--
Matthew
Hi! I'm a .signature virus! Copy me into your ~/.signature, please!