Xref: utzoo comp.sources.d:6919 comp.mail.elm:4067 comp.sys.m88k:689
Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rpi!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!think.com!spool.mu.edu!uunet!lanai!ron
From: ron@Eyring.COM (Ron Holt)
Newsgroups: comp.sources.d,comp.mail.elm,comp.sys.m88k
Subject: Re: utime (was "Interesting bug in compress on 88000 Systems")
Message-ID: <1991May2.180543.12254@Eyring.COM>
Date: 2 May 91 18:05:43 GMT
Article-I.D.: Eyring.1991May2.180543.12254
References: <1991Apr30.180949.12824@xavax.com> <1991May1.152153.12486@wolves.uucp>
Organization: Eyring, Inc.
Lines: 13

Yes, the struct utimbuf issue caused major controversy during the
development of the OCS.  The main reason it was defined with the
usec fields was for compatibility with the BCS interface.  It was
recognized that adding these fields would cause problems for some
existing source code, but since the usec fields could be in the utimbuf
struct and still be POSIX.1 conformant they were left in.  POSIX.1
simply says that the utimbuf struct includes actime and modtime
and does not preclude adding other fields.  It could be considered
a problem with POSIX that extensions can be added to POSIX structures without
saying how applications should treat the extensions in a portable way.
-- 
Ron Holt	ron@Eyring.COM  uunet!lanai!ron
Eyring Inc.	+1 801-375-2434 x434