Re: utimens and non-standardized futimesat [was: coreutils-6.11-1 in release-2 area]

[Bruno Haible]

Eric Blake wrote:
> Tested on cygwin 1.7.0, where futimens and utimensat exist, and on cygwin
> 1.5.25, where those and futimesat are all missing.  OK to apply?  This
> means that coreutils can now support nanosecond resolution on new enough
> kernels for things like touch and cp -p.

Two nits (I'm really only nitpicking):

- You introduce two #ifs that have to be the same condition:
    #if HAVE_FUTIMESAT || HAVE_WORKING_UTIMES
    ...
    #if HAVE_FUTIMESAT || HAVE_WORKING_UTIMES
  It is preferrable, for maintenance (I speak from experience with 
vasnprintf.c...)
  to have this #if only at one place. In this case, I would simply add a
  brace group to the contents and reindent:

    #if HAVE_FUTIMESAT || HAVE_WORKING_UTIMES
      {
        struct timeval timeval[2];
        ...
      }
    #endif

- Is it conceivable that a platform has
    HAVE_FUTIMENS && (HAVE_FUTIMESAT || HAVE_WORKING_UTIMES)
  ? In this case, gcc will warn about dead/unreached code. I would change the
     #if HAVE_FUTIMENS
       return futimens (fd, timespec);
     #endif
  to
     #if HAVE_FUTIMENS
       return futimens (fd, timespec);
     #else
       ... rest of the function ...
     #endif

Bruno