On Sat, 2014-08-23 at 18:33 -0700, Paul Eggert wrote:
> Paul Smith wrote:
>
> > It needs to be considered carefully.
>
> How about having GNU 'make' do what GNU 'cp -u' does?
>
> The idea is to infer filesystem timestamp resolution by looking at every
> file timestamp that crosses your desk. W
> From: Paul Smith
> Date: Tue, 26 Aug 2014 10:52:32 -0400
> Cc: Autoconf , Eric Blake ,
> bug-make
>
> Of course the ability to track filesystems could be added without too
> much effort. It's trivial to determine the filesystem in POSIX via the
> device ID available from stat(), of cour
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 requ
Paul Smith wrote:
It's trivial to determine the filesystem in POSIX via the
device ID available from stat()
Yes, that's what the Gnulib utimecmp module does: the idea is that after
every stat-like operation you look at the file's time stamps to infer
more information about the containing file
On 26/08/14 16:18, Paul Smith wrote:
> 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.
That's effectively what MinGW does anyway, (although it does it through
an import lib
> From: Paul Smith
> Cc: egg...@cs.ucla.edu, Autoconf@gnu.org, ebl...@redhat.com, bug-m...@gnu.org
> Date: Tue, 26 Aug 2014 11:18:35 -0400
>
> > 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
> Date: Tue, 26 Aug 2014 08:25:38 -0700
> From: Paul Eggert
> Cc: Autoconf , Eric Blake ,
> bug-make
>
> As far as Windows goes, NTFS file systems have 100 ns resolution, and
> FAT file systems are the joker as they have a 2-second resolution for
> last-modified time.
That's true, but F
On 26/08/14 18:22, Eli Zaretskii wrote:
>> Date: Tue, 26 Aug 2014 08:25:38 -0700
>> From: Paul Eggert
>> Cc: Autoconf , Eric Blake ,
>> bug-make
>>
>> As far as Windows goes, NTFS file systems have 100 ns resolution, and
>> FAT file systems are the joker as they have a 2-second resolution f
> Date: Tue, 26 Aug 2014 18:30:12 +0100
> From: Keith Marshall
> CC: Autoconf@gnu.org, ebl...@redhat.com, bug-m...@gnu.org
>
> > FAT filesystems are hardly important these days.
>
> Except insofar as they tend to be prevalent on removable media devices,
> such as USB flash drives; woe betide any
