Article View: comp.sources.d
Article #1815Re: utime (was "Interesting bug in compress on 88000 Systems")
From: Ron Holt
Date: Thu, 02 May 1991 18:05
Date: Thu, 02 May 1991 18:05
13 lines
1298 bytes
1298 bytes
Yes, the struct utimbuf issue caused major controversy during the development of the OCS. The main reason it was defined with the usec fields was for compatibility with the BCS interface. It was recognized that adding these fields would cause problems for some existing source code, but since the usec fields could be in the utimbuf struct and still be POSIX.1 conformant they were left in. POSIX.1 simply says that the utimbuf struct includes actime and modtime and does not preclude adding other fields. It could be considered a problem with POSIX that extensions can be added to POSIX structures without saying how applications should treat the extensions in a portable way. -- Ron Holt ron@Eyring.COM uunet!lanai!ron Eyring Inc. +1 801-375-2434 x434
Technical Details
Message-ID:
<1991May2.180543.12254@Eyring.COM>Path:
arc1-ca.pugleaf.net!utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rpi!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!think.com!spool.mu.edu!uunet!lanai!ronReferences:
<1991Apr30.180949.12824@xavax.com> <1991May1.152153.12486@wolves.uucp>Show Full Headers
Complete Article Headers
Path: arc1-ca.pugleaf.net!utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rpi!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!think.com!spool.mu.edu!uunet!lanai!ron From: ron@Eyring.COM (Ron Holt) Newsgroups: comp.sources.d,comp.mail.elm,comp.sys.m88k Subject: Re: utime (was "Interesting bug in compress on 88000 Systems") Message-ID: <1991May2.180543.12254@Eyring.COM> Date: 2 May 91 18:05:43 GMT Article-I.D.: Eyring.1991May2.180543.12254 References: <1991Apr30.180949.12824@xavax.com> <1991May1.152153.12486@wolves.uucp> Organization: Eyring, Inc. Lines: 13