Paolo Montrasio <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > With this message I'm answering to both Jim and Paul at the same > time because I don't want to split the thread. > > The patch proposed by Jim seems equivalent to my one, but > 1) I might be wrong and
FYI, they're not equivalent. The problem with your patch was here: - if (x->update && MTIME_CMP (src_sb, dst_sb) <= 0) ... + preserve_update_test = x->update + && MTIME_CMP (src_sb, dst_sb); + } + if (preserve_update_test <= 0) That would work if the assignment RHS were substituted syntactically, but it's not. The latter `if' test ends up being equivalent to this: if ((x->update && MTIME_CMP (src_sb, dst_sb)) <= 0) which does the wrong thing when x->update is true and MTIME_CMP > 0. If that still doesn't make sense, apply your patch, then run `make check'. There are many failures. _______________________________________________ Bug-coreutils mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/bug-coreutils
