From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.4 (2020-01-24) on polar.synack.me X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00 autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4 X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit X-Google-Thread: 103376,c397a9e135b263db X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public X-Google-ArrivalTime: 2001-08-03 12:35:09 PST Path: archiver1.google.com!newsfeed.google.com!postnews1.google.com!not-for-mail From: dewar@gnat.com (Robert Dewar) Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada Subject: Re: What happens to DEC Ada? Date: 3 Aug 2001 12:35:09 -0700 Organization: http://groups.google.com/ Message-ID: <5ee5b646.0108031135.190b6187@posting.google.com> References: <9ff447f2.0107310659.36d01e9@posting.google.com> <%jra7.3545$257.153834@ozemail.com.au> NNTP-Posting-Host: 205.232.38.244 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Trace: posting.google.com 996867309 7068 127.0.0.1 (3 Aug 2001 19:35:09 GMT) X-Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com NNTP-Posting-Date: 3 Aug 2001 19:35:09 GMT Xref: archiver1.google.com comp.lang.ada:11255 Date: 2001-08-03T19:35:09+00:00 List-Id: Kilgallen@eisner.decus.org.nospam (Larry Kilgallen) wrote in message news:... > > A lot of batch, or cvs import, commit or extractions, can generate > > a lot of files with same name and same timestamp. No, this does not need to happen, and should not happen. Remember that all large C systems are built with make, which uses time stamps in a crucial manner, so any system like cvs of course properly supports time stamps. You do need to make sure that you are not misusing the system (e.g. scripts with cp rather than cp -p in them). > But unless they are the same bits on the disk, they are a different > file. On VMS you would use the 6 byte file ID and the 64 byte device > ID to determine uniqueness. I am sure the same construct must exist > on other operating systems. But that would be a bad idea, because then you could not move files around freely, which is really important. > Granted, someone writing a tool may neglect to consider the situation > you describe, but that is still just an implementation bug. Well as I say, in GNAT, we can also use logical checksums on files, but in fact most of the C and C++ world expects to use time stamps as the one principle method of determining what needs to be built (and of course there is no additional consistency check, so you are *really* depending on time stamps in a very fundamental manner). I do not see any bug here, only a mixture of incorrect procedures and probably incorrect use of tools by Nicolas.