[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [avr-libc-dev] [RFC] patch for Bug #1808
From: |
Joerg Wunsch |
Subject: |
Re: [avr-libc-dev] [RFC] patch for Bug #1808 |
Date: |
Fri, 6 Dec 2002 20:52:19 +0100 |
User-agent: |
Mutt/1.2.5i |
As Theodore A. Roth wrote:
> :) Why not simply "touch fix_png"?
>
> Took a little digging to refresh my memory as to why touch is
> insufficient:
>
> http://www.gnu.org/manual/autoconf/...
>
> Might not be an issue for us though.
Certainly not.
How old must that BSD be in order to not work?
$ date
Fri Dec 6 20:42:02 MET 2002
$
$
$ uname -a
2.11BSD elfje 2.11BSD 2.11 BSD UNIX #2: Tue Oct 1 03:30:21 PDT 2002
address@hidden:/vol1/usr/src/sys/J PDP11
$ ls -l foobar
foobar not found
$ touch foobar
$ ls -l foobar
-rw-r----- 1 j 0 Dec 6 20:42 foobar
$ date
Fri Dec 6 20:43:02 MET 2002
$ touch foobar
$ ls -l foobar
-rw-r----- 1 j 0 Dec 6 20:43 foobar
Apparently, a 2.11BSD running on a PDP-11 (simulator) is not old
enough to trigger the bug described there. ;-)
> Should I commit this as is, change it to
>
> + echo timestamp > fix_png
>
> or revert to touch?
I don't mind both ways. touch is pretty much the standard way of
doing this, but the echo should work fine as well. I was only
reluctant to use yet another command. I'm not even sure whether
the Cygwin environment would include a proper date command, but
i'm sure they'll support echo (it's a shell builtin anyway).
--
J"org Wunsch Unix support engineer
address@hidden http://www.interface-systems.de/~j/