[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: what shall we do with the drunken time_t ?
|
From: |
Bruno Haible |
|
Subject: |
Re: what shall we do with the drunken time_t ? |
|
Date: |
Thu, 27 Apr 2017 12:18:18 +0200 |
|
User-agent: |
KMail/5.1.3 (Linux/4.4.0-75-generic; KDE/5.18.0; x86_64; ; ) |
Hi Paul,
> > if we want a sane behaviour, we have no choice than to override stat()
> > and fstat()
>
> What a pain. Would it be limited to just those two? For example, is there a
> system call like utimensat that lets you set a file's timestamps?
It's the *utimens* test failures that brought us here. [1][2]
I don't think the time_t trouble goes beyond that.
Bruno
[1] https://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/bug-gnulib/2016-12/msg00112.html
[2] https://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/bug-gnulib/2017-04/msg00010.html
Re: what shall we do with the drunken time_t ?, Bruno Haible, 2017/04/29
- Re: what shall we do with the drunken time_t ?, Bruno Haible, 2017/04/30
- Re: what shall we do with the drunken time_t ?, Bruno Haible, 2017/04/30
- new module 'ctime', Bruno Haible, 2017/04/30
- new module 'localtime', Bruno Haible, 2017/04/30
- mktime: add native Windows workaround, Bruno Haible, 2017/04/30
- new module 'strftime-fixes', Bruno Haible, 2017/04/30
- new module 'wcsftime', Bruno Haible, 2017/04/30