On 04/27/2010 06:35 PM, Bruno Haible wrote:
>> I know that utimes() is affected.
>
> Aha! Now we're at the root of the problem: There is a portability problem
> with utimes(), which causes a warning in utimens.c.
>
> But since utimes() already has so many other problems, we are recommending
> to
Andreas Gruenbacher wrote:
> > > * lib/utimens.c: On some systems, the timestamp parameter of
> > > utimens(2) is not declared as a const *; avoid warnings in that case.
> >
> > You mean the parameter of futimesat(), futimes(), lutimes()?
>
> I know that utimes() is affected.
Aha! Now we're at t
On Tuesday 27 April 2010 23:56:34 Bruno Haible wrote:
> Hi Andreas,
>
> > * lib/utimens.c: On some systems, the timestamp parameter of
> > utimens(2) is not declared as a const *; avoid warnings in that case.
>
> You mean the parameter of futimesat(), futimes(), lutimes()?
I know that utimes() i
On Tuesday 27 April 2010 23:41:08 Eric Blake wrote:
> On 04/27/2010 03:23 PM, Andreas Gruenbacher wrote:
> > * lib/utimens.c: On some systems, the timestamp parameter of
> > utimens(2) is not declared as a const *; avoid warnings in that case.
>
> utimes(2), not utimens(2).
Oops, yes.
> Which sy
Hi Andreas,
> * lib/utimens.c: On some systems, the timestamp parameter of
> utimens(2) is not declared as a const *; avoid warnings in that case.
You mean the parameter of futimesat(), futimes(), lutimes()?
And which platform is affected? I just checked futimesat() on Solaris
and futimes(), luti
On 04/27/2010 03:23 PM, Andreas Gruenbacher wrote:
> * lib/utimens.c: On some systems, the timestamp parameter of
> utimens(2) is not declared as a const *; avoid warnings in that case.
utimes(2), not utimens(2). Which system(s)? At any rate, since we
(intentionally) don't provide a gnulib repla
