Add creation time support to FileTimes on apple and windows

[beetrees]

Adds support for setting file creation times on platforms which support changing it directly (currently only Apple and Windows). Based on top of #110093 (which was split from this PR).

ACP: rust-lang/libs-team#199 (currently still in progress)

Tracking issue: #98245

@rustbot label +T-libs-api -T-libs

[rustbot]

r? @cuviper

(rustbot has picked a reviewer for you, use r? to override)

[rustbot]

Hey! It looks like you've submitted a new PR for the library teams!

If this PR contains changes to any rust-lang/rust public library APIs then please comment with @rustbot label +T-libs-api -T-libs to tag it appropriately. If this PR contains changes to any unstable APIs please edit the PR description to add a link to the relevant API Change Proposal or create one if you haven't already. If you're unsure where your change falls no worries, just leave it as is and the reviewer will take a look and make a decision to forward on if necessary.

Examples of T-libs-api changes:

• Stabilizing library features
• Introducing insta-stable changes such as new implementations of existing stable traits on existing stable types
• Introducing new or changing existing unstable library APIs (excluding permanently unstable features / features without a tracking issue)
• Changing public documentation in ways that create new stability guarantees
• Changing observable runtime behavior of library APIs

[beetrees]

@rustbot label -T-libs

[cuviper]

Also refactors existing support for 64-bit time_t on 32-bit glibc platforms, as riscv32 time_t is 64-bit by default.

That part looks fine with me, and might deserve an independent PR. You should create an ACP for the API addition.
r? libs-api

[beetrees]

I've created an ACP at rust-lang/libs-team#199 and split the refactor out into #109784.

[Amanieu]

Thanks! You still need to remove the RISC-V commit from this PR.

Could you add a test in library/std/src/fs/tests.rs? Just try setting the file time and reading it back to ensure it worked.

[Amanieu]

LGTM! This PR is still marked as a draft, are there any more changes or is it ready to merge?

[beetrees]

I've removed the left-over commit and added a test for FileTimes (the test tests setting accessed and modified times as well as creation time as there aren't any tests for setting file times at the moment).

[beetrees]

It's ready to merge; I just marked it as a draft because it was blocked on the ACP.

[Amanieu]

@bors r+

[bors]

📌 Commit c2a0a9a494c7467c90dd76c4e344d1952f2a424c has been approved by Amanieu

It is now in the queue for this repository.

[bors]

💔 Test failed - checks-actions

[bors]

☔ The latest upstream changes (presumably #111066) made this pull request unmergeable. Please resolve the merge conflicts.

[beetrees]

I've fixed the test failure and resolved the merge conflicts. Sorry about the delay.

[Amanieu]

@bors r+

[bors]

📌 Commit 246dcbc has been approved by Amanieu

It is now in the queue for this repository.

[bors]

⌛ Testing commit 246dcbc with merge 521f4da...

[bors]

☀️ Test successful - checks-actions
Approved by: Amanieu
Pushing 521f4da to master...

[rust-timer]

Finished benchmarking commit (521f4da): comparison URL.

Overall result: ❌ regressions - ACTION NEEDED

Next Steps: If you can justify the regressions found in this perf run, please indicate this with @rustbot label: +perf-regression-triaged along with sufficient written justification. If you cannot justify the regressions please open an issue or create a new PR that fixes the regressions, add a comment linking to the newly created issue or PR, and then add the perf-regression-triaged label to this PR.

@rustbot label: +perf-regression
cc @rust-lang/wg-compiler-performance

Instruction count

This is a highly reliable metric that was used to determine the overall result at the top of this comment.

	mean	range	count
Regressions ❌ (primary)	0.8%	[0.7%, 0.8%]	4
Regressions ❌ (secondary)	0.6%	[0.3%, 0.7%]	6
Improvements ✅ (primary)	-	-	0
Improvements ✅ (secondary)	-	-	0
All ❌✅ (primary)	0.8%	[0.7%, 0.8%]	4

Max RSS (memory usage)

Results

This is a less reliable metric that may be of interest but was not used to determine the overall result at the top of this comment.

	mean	range	count
Regressions ❌ (primary)	4.1%	[4.1%, 4.1%]	1
Regressions ❌ (secondary)	-	-	0
Improvements ✅ (primary)	-	-	0
Improvements ✅ (secondary)	-2.0%	[-2.0%, -2.0%]	1
All ❌✅ (primary)	4.1%	[4.1%, 4.1%]	1

Cycles

This benchmark run did not return any relevant results for this metric.

Binary size

This benchmark run did not return any relevant results for this metric.

Bootstrap: 643.295s -> 641.28s (-0.31%)

[lqd]

I believe this to be noise that has since then returned to steady state. This PR being the rising edge of the last bump in the following graphs.

@rustbot label: +perf-regression-triaged