1 |
>>>>> On Wed, 25 Nov 2009, Zac Medico wrote: |
2 |
|
3 |
>> Not non-preservation. Partial and inconsistent corruption. |
4 |
|
5 |
> Wouldn't "loss of precision" be a more accurate description? |
6 |
|
7 |
Yes. Or even "rounding". |
8 |
|
9 |
> Of the known packages which require timestamp preservation, do any |
10 |
> of them use sub-second precision in their timestamp comparisons? |
11 |
|
12 |
I can speak for Emacs only, where the comparison code (in fileio.c) is |
13 |
as follows: |
14 |
|
15 |
if (stat (SDATA (absname1), &st) < 0) |
16 |
return Qnil; |
17 |
|
18 |
mtime1 = st.st_mtime; |
19 |
|
20 |
if (stat (SDATA (absname2), &st) < 0) |
21 |
return Qt; |
22 |
|
23 |
return (mtime1 > st.st_mtime) ? Qt : Qnil; |
24 |
|
25 |
It uses stat(2), therefore nanoseconds are ignored. |
26 |
|
27 |
Ulrich |