Jim Meyering wrote: > Mike Frysinger wrote: >> On Friday 17 April 2009 18:28:07 James Youngman wrote: > ... >>> The patch itself looks good, but it might be worth leaving in a >>> comment indicating why the optimisation should not be reintroduced... >> >> and/or a new test (i prefer the "and"): >> if [ -e /proc/cpuinfo ] ; then >> cp /proc/cpuinfo cpuinfo.cp >> cat /proc/cpuinfo > cpuinfo.cat >> cmp cpuinfo.cp cpuinfo.cat >> fi > > Of course ;-) > As promised, I've added a test for this below. > > We can't use /proc/cpuinfo, at least not precisely like that, > because its cpu speed line can change due to frequency scaling. > Also, that file is usually too small to trigger the failure. > > Here's a more complete patch, with a title and NEWS reflecting > that I now think it's a linux kernel bug. > I'll wait a few days before pushing, in case I learn otherwise.
No one claims that /proc is POSIX compliant, so I'm pushing this. _______________________________________________ Bug-coreutils mailing list [email protected] http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/bug-coreutils
