| 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 |
Archives