From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.io!.POSTED.blaine.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Lars Ingebrigtsen Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: Re: sqlite3 Date: Mon, 27 Dec 2021 16:07:11 +0100 Message-ID: <87k0fqaxy8.fsf@gnus.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> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Injection-Info: ciao.gmane.io; posting-host="blaine.gmane.org:116.202.254.214"; logging-data="32900"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@ciao.gmane.io" User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/29.0.50 (gnu/linux) Cc: emacs-devel@gnu.org To: Eli Zaretskii Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane-mx.org@gnu.org Mon Dec 27 16:13:13 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 1n1rgW-0008OQ-Ie for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane-mx.org; Mon, 27 Dec 2021 16:13:12 +0100 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1]:44450 helo=lists1p.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1n1rgU-0003ht-V3 for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane-mx.org; Mon, 27 Dec 2021 10:13:10 -0500 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([209.51.188.92]:37954) by lists.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1n1rap-0006HP-Lf for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Mon, 27 Dec 2021 10:07:20 -0500 Original-Received: from [2a01:4f9:2b:f0f::2] (port=60338 helo=quimby.gnus.org) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1n1rao-0001gT-1Q; Mon, 27 Dec 2021 10:07:19 -0500 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gnus.org; s=20200322; h=Content-Type:MIME-Version:Message-ID:In-Reply-To:Date: References:Subject:Cc:To:From:Sender:Reply-To:Content-Transfer-Encoding: Content-ID:Content-Description:Resent-Date:Resent-From:Resent-Sender: Resent-To:Resent-Cc:Resent-Message-ID:List-Id:List-Help:List-Unsubscribe: List-Subscribe:List-Post:List-Owner:List-Archive; bh=GyRSB2xxeReE1ENU60xeDlCzEZWp73w6pwDMsfxfLoU=; b=Xa/5qDA2jj3Z6csOn6aXzhLLcm 7lfthQ66hPQbUU24AN0p5lgqh4Ihj9CwoVatS4aiF5fIzOJS0E7LVdU6eqwrnnGFSyiMhQM0mxBuK hfxY4tFdNW0JVRQ2oxX9a54xX60QZ+2uz6/D4EA5MekXkuIpgHcwEkaWxIjM7DCr4y1c=; Original-Received: from [84.212.220.105] (helo=xo) by quimby.gnus.org with esmtpsa (TLS1.3:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.92) (envelope-from ) id 1n1rai-0006TM-4J; Mon, 27 Dec 2021 16:07:14 +0100 X-Now-Playing: Coffins's _Defilements_: "Tyrant" In-Reply-To: <83r19ym6vv.fsf@gnu.org> (Eli Zaretskii's message of "Mon, 27 Dec 2021 16:58:44 +0200") X-Host-Lookup-Failed: Reverse DNS lookup failed for 2a01:4f9:2b:f0f::2 (failed) Received-SPF: pass client-ip=2a01:4f9:2b:f0f::2; envelope-from=larsi@gnus.org; helo=quimby.gnus.org X-Spam_score_int: -35 X-Spam_score: -3.6 X-Spam_bar: --- X-Spam_report: (-3.6 / 5.0 requ) BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, RDNS_NONE=0.793, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001 autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no X-Spam_action: no action 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:283435 Archived-At: 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. 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. -- (domestic pets only, the antidote for overdose, milk.) bloggy blog: http://lars.ingebrigtsen.no