From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.io!.POSTED.blaine.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Eli Zaretskii Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: Re: sqlite3 Date: Mon, 27 Dec 2021 17:14:14 +0200 Message-ID: <83o852m661.fsf@gnu.org> References: <87tufmjyai.fsf@gnus.org> <83v8zk96yh.fsf@gnu.org> <87zgowvmt5.fsf@gnus.org> <838rwg8z8i.fsf@gnu.org> <871r28vg4y.fsf@gnus.org> <834k748wez.fsf@gnu.org> <831r288vne.fsf@gnu.org> <83zgow7fpi.fsf@gnu.org> <83y24g7dui.fsf@gnu.org> <8735mnr5cb.fsf@gnus.org> <83bl19zwwy.fsf@gnu.org> <87bl18g7r3.fsf@gnus.org> <83ee64ych1.fsf@gnu.org> <83o853pydo.fsf@gnu.org> <875yrbzjc5.fsf@gnus.org> <8335mfpox7.fsf@gnu.org> <83pmpjo79j.fsf@gnu.org> <83ilvbo2ab.fsf@gnu.org> <83h7avo1l6.fsf@gnu.org> <87o852cl7z.fsf@gnus.org> <83r19ym6vv.fsf@gnu.org> <87k0fqaxy8.fsf@gnus.org> Injection-Info: ciao.gmane.io; posting-host="blaine.gmane.org:116.202.254.214"; logging-data="3015"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@ciao.gmane.io" Cc: emacs-devel@gnu.org To: Lars Ingebrigtsen Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane-mx.org@gnu.org Mon Dec 27 16:15:32 2021 Return-path: Envelope-to: ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane-mx.org Original-Received: from lists.gnu.org ([209.51.188.17]) by ciao.gmane.io with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.92) (envelope-from ) id 1n1ril-0000Yf-I6 for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane-mx.org; Mon, 27 Dec 2021 16:15:31 +0100 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1]:47548 helo=lists1p.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1n1rik-0005s1-LR for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane-mx.org; Mon, 27 Dec 2021 10:15:30 -0500 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([209.51.188.92]:39972) by lists.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1n1rha-0004mX-Ec for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Mon, 27 Dec 2021 10:14:18 -0500 Original-Received: from [2001:470:142:3::e] (port=58602 helo=fencepost.gnu.org) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1n1rha-0002o4-4e; Mon, 27 Dec 2021 10:14:18 -0500 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gnu.org; s=fencepost-gnu-org; h=References:Subject:In-Reply-To:To:From:Date: mime-version; bh=nNZFLVWHoTIcFlRo/8fuKmDqTttdEDyHNR+qp2+loKI=; b=BdDt3Q21ABOS x5ekOljFM0MvtLCwkXUR5SDh/BIaUmM0iMvahzeWEQtDtQcZBElabaWWng0Vrq6g2KNNIBOR2Em1O 36xAd5MCNwQWkb1ru176WHvGm/gob8LqDsgHt5QlZWgDoNTDamBS9qtsunDj7JM+tzcuhmAT3mWkn ejowWsQ/uKJYSaUgiYTdVLsiLS0uk34E2Oq+eWZ0hFJMV05IgE8PCG2zT9g79xkPqqggIsk1bkVjh 0Y/ZT90tqNnDwMYfha/PaaynjZjPFzLZO5poB/8NyoiejwFB66tMBYe5J2Ef9SB9ieq4BUE2RhzOW FnIWurv7Cwv5UVYCSqrlCQ==; Original-Received: from [87.69.77.57] (port=3944 helo=home-c4e4a596f7) by fencepost.gnu.org with esmtpsa (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1n1rha-00012r-1O; Mon, 27 Dec 2021 10:14:18 -0500 In-Reply-To: <87k0fqaxy8.fsf@gnus.org> (message from Lars Ingebrigtsen on Mon, 27 Dec 2021 16:07:11 +0100) X-BeenThere: emacs-devel@gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: "Emacs development discussions." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane-mx.org@gnu.org Original-Sender: "Emacs-devel" Xref: news.gmane.io gmane.emacs.devel:283436 Archived-At: > From: Lars Ingebrigtsen > Cc: emacs-devel@gnu.org > Date: Mon, 27 Dec 2021 16:07:11 +0100 > > Eli Zaretskii writes: > > >> But doesn't it seem more likely that it's the `file-attributes' call > >> here that returns outdated data on Windows? That would explain all the > >> symptoms you're seeing, I think? > > > > Could be. But how does this affect the solution? > > I think we should confirm whether that's the case or not -- and not > attempt to read the file if it doesn't exist. If you can show a patch that only reads if the file exists, I can see if the offending test still succeeds. > That is, I wonder what the timestamp returned here really is, and how it > compares to the cached timestamp. Could it be that the timestamps are > identical and that's why `time-less-p' is returning nil? If it's a > matter of the timestamps having too low resolution on (some?) Windows > versions, then perhaps we could have some particular logic for that. The file's time resolution on Windows is 0.1usec (100 nanoseconds). I think this should be enough.