>>>>> On Wed, 25 Nov 2009, Zac Medico wrote:
>> Not non-preservation. Partial and inconsistent corruption.
> Wouldn't "loss of precision" be a more accurate description?
Yes. Or even "rounding".
> Of the known packages which require timestamp preservation, do any
> of them use sub-second precision in their timestamp comparisons?
I can speak for Emacs only, where the comparison code (in fileio.c) is
as follows:
if (stat (SDATA (absname1), &st) < 0)
return Qnil;
mtime1 = st.st_mtime;
if (stat (SDATA (absname2), &st) < 0)
return Qt;
return (mtime1 > st.st_mtime) ? Qt : Qnil;
It uses stat(2), therefore nanoseconds are ignored.
Ulrich
