From: Andrew Pimlott <andrew@pimlott.net>
To: Jamie Lokier <jamie@shareable.org>
Cc: Paul Eggert <eggert@gnu.org>, Andi Kleen <ak@suse.de>,
gcc@gcc.gnu.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
bug-coreutils@gnu.org
Subject: Re: Linux 2.6 nanosecond time stamp weirdness breaks GCC build
Date: Fri, 2 Apr 2004 23:59:48 -0500 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20040403045948.GA21384@pimlott.net> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20040402011411.GE28520@mail.shareable.org>
On Fri, Apr 02, 2004 at 02:14:11AM +0100, Jamie Lokier wrote:
> However, sponteneous mtime changes are not polite. So I broadly agree
> with the principle of:
>
> Paul Eggert wrote:
> > The only way I can see to satisfy these two principles is to truncate
> > the timestamp right away, when it is first put into the inode cache.
> > That way, the copy in main memory equals what will be put onto disk.
> > This is the approach taken by other operating systems like Solaris,
> > and it explains why parallel GCC builds won't have this problem on
> > these other systems.
So is there any chance in the world that this behavior could be
implemented? None of the alternatives work, and we now know that the
problem bites. (I can't even guess how much time Ulrich wasted
diagnosing it.)
> This behaviour was established in 2.5.48, 18th November 2002.
And shown to be broken in October.
Andrew
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2004-04-03 4:59 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 29+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2004-04-01 19:28 Linux 2.6 nanosecond time stamp weirdness breaks GCC build Ulrich Weigand
2004-04-01 20:09 ` Andi Kleen
2004-04-01 20:39 ` Daniel Jacobowitz
2004-04-01 20:46 ` Andi Kleen
2004-04-01 21:01 ` Ulrich Weigand
2004-04-01 21:44 ` Andi Kleen
2004-04-01 22:39 ` Joe Buck
2004-04-01 22:44 ` Paul Jarc
2004-04-01 22:48 ` Ulrich Weigand
2004-04-01 23:58 ` Joe Buck
2004-04-02 0:13 ` Daniel Jacobowitz
2004-04-02 0:02 ` Jamie Lokier
2004-04-02 0:35 ` Paul Eggert
2004-04-02 1:14 ` Jamie Lokier
2004-04-02 7:57 ` James H. Cloos Jr.
2004-04-02 9:22 ` Paul Eggert
2004-04-02 16:23 ` Jamie Lokier
2004-04-02 20:45 ` Paul Eggert
2004-04-02 21:07 ` Jamie Lokier
2004-04-02 21:56 ` Paul Eggert
2004-04-03 4:59 ` Andrew Pimlott [this message]
2004-04-02 0:37 ` Andrew Morton
2004-06-07 16:03 ` Jörn Engel
2004-04-01 21:13 ` Janis Johnson
2004-04-01 21:41 ` Ulrich Weigand
2004-04-02 0:30 ` Alan Modra
2004-04-02 9:05 ` P
2004-04-02 17:27 ` Alexandre Oliva
-- strict thread matches above, loose matches on Subject: below --
2004-04-01 20:51 Michael Elizabeth Chastain
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=20040403045948.GA21384@pimlott.net \
--to=andrew@pimlott.net \
--cc=ak@suse.de \
--cc=bug-coreutils@gnu.org \
--cc=eggert@gnu.org \
--cc=gcc@gcc.gnu.org \
--cc=jamie@shareable.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox