Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!decwrl!ucbvax!usenix!std-unix
From: Don_Lewine%dgc.ceo.dg.com@RELAY.CS.NET
Newsgroups: comp.std.unix
Subject: Reply to utime() question
Message-ID: <412@usenix.ORG>
Date: 31 Jul 90 21:56:44 GMT
References: <405@usenix.ORG>
Sender: std-unix@usenix.ORG
Reply-To: std-unix@uunet.uu.net
Lines: 41
Approved: jsq@usenix (Moderator, John Quarterman)

From:  Don_Lewine%dgc.ceo.dg.com@RELAY.CS.NET

CEO document contents:

In article <405@usenix.ORG> <uunet!samsung.com!audfax!arnold> writes:
>From:  arnold@audiofax.com (Arnold Robbins)
>
>Can someone with access to the 1003.1 standard tell me if the utime(2)
>system call is standardized, and if so if the definition of struct utimbuf
>is supposed to be in a particular header file?


>From POSIX 5.6.6.1:
       #include <sys/types.h>
       #include <utime.h>

       Int utime(path,times)
       char *path;
       struct utimebuf *times;

>From 5.6.6.2:
The utimbuf structure is defined by the header <utime.h>, and included the
following members:
       TYPE    NAME            Description
       time_t  actime          Access time
       time_t  modtime         Modification time

The 1990 revision of 1003.1 changes the definition to use an ANSI prototype:
       int utime(char *path, struct utimebuf *times);
and add the restriction the the utimebuf structure may not contain any members
other than the ones listed in the standard.

Note that utime() is the only function [I believe] where a structure is passed
into the system without having been obtained by a prior library call.  This 
makes it "special".  I would guess that this is why AT&T never put it into a
header file.

                       --Donald Lewine
                       uunet!dg!lewine

Volume-Number: Volume 20, Number 153