Re: [RFC PATCH]: autom4te: report subsecond timestamp support in --version

On Tue, Dec 5, 2023, at 11:30 PM, Jacob Bachmeyer wrote: > Zack Weinberg wrote: >> $ autom4te --version >> autom4te (GNU Autoconf) 2.71 >> Features: subsecond-timestamps >> >> Copyright (C) 2021 Free Software Foundation, Inc. >> License GPLv3+/Autoconf: GNU GPL version 3 or later >>

Re: [RFC PATCH]: autom4te: report subsecond timestamp support in --version

Zack Weinberg wrote: On Mon, Dec 4, 2023, at 7:26 PM, Jacob Bachmeyer wrote: Now that I have seen the actual patch, yes, this test should be accurate. The test in the main autom4te script will also work, even if there is a mismatch between the script and its library Good. This ap

Re: [RFC PATCH]: autom4te: report subsecond timestamp support in --version

Features: subsecond-timestamps Sounds good to me, FWIW. Thanks to all. -k

Re: [RFC PATCH]: autom4te: report subsecond timestamp support in --version

On Mon, Dec 4, 2023, at 7:26 PM, Jacob Bachmeyer wrote: > Now that I have seen the actual patch, yes, this test should be > accurate. The test in the main autom4te script will also work, even > if there is a mismatch between the script and its library Good. > This appears to be misaligned with t

Re: [RFC PATCH]: autom4te: report subsecond timestamp support in --version

Zack Weinberg wrote: The Automake test suite wants this in order to know if it’s safe to reduce the length of various delays for the purpose of ensuring files in autom4te.cache are newer than the corresponding source files. * lib/Autom4te/FileUtils.pm: Provide (but do not export) a flag $subse

[RFC PATCH]: autom4te: report subsecond timestamp support in --version

The Automake test suite wants this in order to know if it’s safe to reduce the length of various delays for the purpose of ensuring files in autom4te.cache are newer than the corresponding source files. * lib/Autom4te/FileUtils.pm: Provide (but do not export) a flag $subsecond_mtime, indicating