On Mar 6 06:00, Eric Blake wrote: > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- > Hash: SHA1 > > There is currently a thread on bug-gnulib about adding GNU tool support > for platforms that support st_birthtime in addition to st_atime, st_mtime, > and st_ctime. Since Windows has a notion of birthtime (in fact, since > Windows calls their birthtime attribute a 'creation time', leading to > several people's confusion over what ctime really means), is it worth > cygwin 1.7 adding st_birthtime support?
I don't know if it's actually worth the effort, but it would be easily supportable in struct stat, given that we have spare room in struct stat of exactly the size of a timestruc_t, afaics. But, still, does it really make sense? How long will it take until st_birthtime will go into the standards, if at all? Corinna -- Corinna Vinschen Please, send mails regarding Cygwin to Cygwin Project Co-Leader cygwin AT cygwin DOT com Red Hat -- Unsubscribe info: http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple Problem reports: http://cygwin.com/problems.html Documentation: http://cygwin.com/docs.html FAQ: http://cygwin.com/faq/
