POSIX v. reality: A position on O

POSIX v. reality: A position on O_PONIES

Posted Sep 18, 2009 21:02 UTC (Fri) by jch (guest, #51929)
In reply to: POSIX v. reality: A position on O_PONIES by nix
Parent article: POSIX v. reality: A position on O_PONIES

> Thats decidedly optional, isn't it? So failing link() on directories isn't a conformance violation anyway.

Indeed. According to the 2001 edition:

> Upon successful completion, link() shall mark for update the st_ctime field of the file. Also, the st_ctime and st_mtime fields of the direc-tory that contains the new entry shall be marked for update.

(Log in to post comments)

POSIX v. reality: A position on O_PONIES

Posted Sep 20, 2009 19:47 UTC (Sun) by nix (subscriber, #2304) [Link]

Um, I think you copied the wrong section of the standard ;) Also 2001 is
kind of out of date now.