Jim Meyering [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
The only other question is whether EROFS is always defined. This code
now contains the first use of that symbol in coreutils. I checked a few
packages and found that the uses in binutils and cvs are both protected
with #if directives. But rsync and
Dmitry V. Levin [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Your change (at 2004-11-23) to src/touch.c introduces regression:
On GNU/Linux without futimes syscall and without /proc mounted, futimes()
function from glibc returns ENOENT, futimens() from gnulib also returns
ENOENT, and touch utility fails.
I
Hi,
On Mon, Jan 03, 2005 at 12:53:58AM -0800, Paul Eggert wrote:
Your change (at 2004-11-23) to src/touch.c introduces regression:
On GNU/Linux without futimes syscall and without /proc mounted, futimes()
function from glibc returns ENOENT, futimens() from gnulib also returns
ENOENT, and
Dmitry V. Levin [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
...
According to documentation, futimes() may also fail with ENOSYS; in this
case, falling back on utimes() also looks reasonable:
+ if (errno != ENOENT)
+ if (errno != ENOSYS errno != ENOENT)
Thanks.
I've made that change.
Jim Meyering [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Dmitry V. Levin [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
+ if (errno != ENOSYS errno != ENOENT)
Thanks.
I've made that change.
On further thought, this looks like a classic example where we should
be testing for known valid error numbers rather than adding bogus
Paul Eggert [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Jim Meyering [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Dmitry V. Levin [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
+ if (errno != ENOSYS errno != ENOENT)
Thanks.
I've made that change.
On further thought, this looks like a classic example where we should
be testing for known
Jim Meyering [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Your switch statement should probably handle EBADF, too,
to avoid an unnecessary utimes call after such a failure.
EBADF shouldn't happen as it violates the futimens documentation,
which says FD must be either negative -- in which case it is ignored
-- or
