bug#56710: ls vs. stat display of st_size

2022-07-23 Thread Paul Eggert
On 7/23/22 05:17, Pádraig Brady wrote: BTW I see we've code in cache_fstatat() that assumes st_size can't have such large values, which contradicts a bit. Good catch. I installed the first attached patch. > This is only a real consideration for virtual files I think > since off_t is signed,

bug#56710: ls vs. stat display of st_size

2022-07-23 Thread Pádraig Brady
On 22/07/2022 21:52, Paul Eggert wrote: Thanks for reporting that. I installed the attached. Playing devil's advocate, this takes the stance that st_size should always be treated as unsigned (given that stat(1) is a lower level util than ls(1)). This is only a real consideration for virtual