Pádraig Brady wrote: > Jim Meyering wrote: >> Thanks for the review. >> BTW, here's the merged version: > > And attached one handles the `ls -Ls` case, > which I'll push soon. > > cheers, > Pádraig. >>From 3edaa2363db0367e8fa472c4dc5c5696537cde61 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 > From: =?utf-8?q?P=C3=A1draig=20Brady?= <[email protected]> > Date: Tue, 29 Sep 2009 15:43:01 +0100 > Subject: [PATCH] ls: always print "?" for allocated size of a dereferenced > dangling symlink > > Previously for `ls -Ls` (but not `ls -Lsl`), we referenced > the st_blocks returned from the previous failed stat() call. > This undefined value was seen to be 0 for danglink symlinks at least. > * src/ls.c (print_file_name_and_frills, length_of_file_name_and_frills): > Don't use st_blocks if the previous stat() failed > * tests/ls/dangle: Add a test case > * NEWS: Mention the bug fix
Good catch. Thanks!
