Path: utzoo!attcan!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rutgers!uwm.edu!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!usc!ucsd!ucbvax!usenix!std-unix
From: donn@hpfcrn.fc.hp.com (Donn Terry)
Newsgroups: comp.std.unix
Subject: Re: is struct utimbuf in the standard sys/types.h?
Message-ID: <423@usenix.ORG>
Date: 4 Aug 90 17:29:20 GMT
References: <405@usenix.ORG> <415@usenix.ORG> <422@usenix.ORG>
Sender: std-unix@usenix.ORG
Reply-To: std-unix@uunet.uu.net
Lines: 23
Approved: jsq@usenix.org (Moderator, John Quarterman)

From:  Donn Terry <donn@hpfcrn.fc.hp.com>

(More to "is struct utimbuf...")

Don Lewine's posting reminded me (I can't remember EVERYTHING) about
the issue of additional fields in structures.  All my comments in my
previous posting stand, but apply primarily to structures that are
filled in (at least initially) by the system.  For ones that are 
sent to the system, created from "nowhere", there is an additional
problem, that of "how can a portable application know to/how to 
initialize additional (vendor-defined) fields?".

The solution in the 1990 revision is to prohibit additional fields
for the structures like that.  (A vendor is then required to provide
a new call to set microseconds, or whatever.)

It was agreed that this was not the most desireable solution, but it
was the only one that worked.

Donn Terry
Same disclaimer.

Volume-Number: Volume 21, Number 6