Cute idea, maybe. But very inconsistent with the size in blocks (reported by
ls -dls dir).
Is there a particular reason for this, or is it one of those just for the heck
of it things?
Granted that it isn't necessarily _wrong_. I just checked SUSv3 for stat() and
sys/stat.h,
and it appears
Richard L. Hamilton rlha...@smart.net wrote:
Cute idea, maybe. But very inconsistent with the size in blocks (reported by
ls -dls dir).
Is there a particular reason for this, or is it one of those just for the
heck of it things?
Granted that it isn't necessarily _wrong_. I just checked
Richard L. Hamilton rlha...@smart.net wrote:
Cute idea, maybe. But very inconsistent with the
size in blocks (reported by ls -dls dir).
Is there a particular reason for this, or is it one
of those just for the heck of it things?
Granted that it isn't necessarily _wrong_. I just
Richard L. Hamilton rlha...@smart.net wrote:
I did find the earlier discussion on the subject (someone e-mailed me that
there had been
such). It seemed to conclude that some apps are statically linked with old
scandir() code
that (incorrectly) assumed that the number of directory entries
Richard L. Hamilton rlha...@smart.net wrote:
I did find the earlier discussion on the subject (someone e-mailed me that
there had been
such). It seemed to conclude that some apps are statically linked with old
scandir() code
that (incorrectly) assumed that the number of directory entries
