On Thu, 2 May 2002, Cliff Woolley wrote: > Which *looks* okay. My best guess is that, since we're comparing > apr_time_t's, maybe mtime includes some number of microseconds and thus is > greater than the ims for the same second. Does that sound reasonable? If > so, I guess we need to divide ims, mtime, and r->request_time by > APR_USEC_PER_SEC before comparison.
Upon further investigation, this definitely seems a likely possibility on Win32. On Unix, the mtime will always have zero usecs (because it starts out as a time_t and gets multiplied by APR_USEC_PER_SEC. On Win32, however, mtime comes in from the OS as a FILETIME, which could potentially include a nonzero number of usecs. Boom. --Cliff -------------------------------------------------------------- Cliff Woolley [EMAIL PROTECTED] Charlottesville, VA
