Op 06-03-18 om 09:19 schreef Herbert Xu:
> On Thu, Jun 22, 2017 at 10:30:02AM +0200, Petr Skočík wrote:
>> would you be willing to pull something like this?
[...]
>> I could use greater resolution in `test -nt` / `test -ot`, and st_mtim
>> field is standardized under POSIX.1-2008 (or so stat(2) says).
> 
> Sure.  But your patch is corrupted.

Fixed patch attached.

But I wouldn't apply it as is. My system does not have st_mtim. So I
think it needs a configure test and a fallback to the old method.

- M.
diff --git a/src/bltin/test.c b/src/bltin/test.c
index 58c05fe..7ea02f2 100644
--- a/src/bltin/test.c
+++ b/src/bltin/test.c
@@ -478,7 +478,9 @@ newerf (const char *f1, const char *f2)
 
        return (stat (f1, &b1) == 0 &&
                stat (f2, &b2) == 0 &&
-               b1.st_mtime > b2.st_mtime);
+               ( b1.st_mtim.tv_sec > b2.st_mtim.tv_sec ||
+                (b1.st_mtim.tv_sec == b2.st_mtim.tv_sec && (b1.st_mtim.tv_nsec 
> b2.st_mtim.tv_nsec )))
+       );
 }
 
 static int
@@ -488,7 +490,9 @@ olderf (const char *f1, const char *f2)
 
        return (stat (f1, &b1) == 0 &&
                stat (f2, &b2) == 0 &&
-               b1.st_mtime < b2.st_mtime);
+               (b1.st_mtim.tv_sec < b2.st_mtim.tv_sec ||
+                (b1.st_mtim.tv_sec == b2.st_mtim.tv_sec && (b1.st_mtim.tv_nsec 
< b2.st_mtim.tv_nsec )))
+       );
 }
 
 static int

Reply via email to