Return-Path: Delivered-To: apmail-apr-dev-archive@apr.apache.org Received: (qmail 57677 invoked by uid 500); 15 Jul 2002 03:23:44 -0000 Mailing-List: contact dev-help@apr.apache.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Post: List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Subscribe: Delivered-To: mailing list dev@apr.apache.org Received: (qmail 57666 invoked from network); 15 Jul 2002 03:23:44 -0000 X-Authentication-Warning: cancer.clove.org: jerenk set sender to jerenkrantz@apache.org using -f Date: Sun, 14 Jul 2002 20:23:54 -0700 From: Justin Erenkrantz To: dev@apr.apache.org Subject: Re: more notes on the apr_time_t issue Message-ID: <20020715032353.GA27727@apache.org> Mail-Followup-To: Justin Erenkrantz , dev@apr.apache.org References: <5.1.0.14.2.20020714153639.00b94680@pop3.rowe-clan.net> <00b101c22baa$ed124f30$0a01230a@KOJ> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <00b101c22baa$ed124f30$0a01230a@KOJ> User-Agent: Mutt/1.4i X-Spam-Rating: daedalus.apache.org 1.6.2 0/1000/N On Sun, Jul 14, 2002 at 07:54:23PM -0700, Ryan Bloom wrote: > BTW, nsec is completely bogus. There isn't an OS that I know of that > reports nsec intervals. Windows comes the closest with 100 nsec chunks, On *BSD platforms, stat() returns nanoseconds in a timespec struct or in the st_?timensec variable for the {amc}time values. Therefore, it is conceivable to have nsec support in apr_time_t to represent file times efficently (if the underlying OS supports it). So, I don't believe nsec support is as far-fetched as it first sounds. -- justin