Eric Blake <ebl...@redhat.com> writes: > On 04/12/2010 08:15 AM, Paul Bibbings wrote: >> 14:57:37 Paul bibbi...@jijou >> /cygdrive/d/Downloads/link_test $link zoo.exe zoo_link >> >> 14:57:54 Paul bibbi...@jijou >> /cygdrive/d/Downloads/link_test $ls -l >> total 128 >> -rwxr-xr-x+ 2 Paul Bibbings None 65024 Apr 12 14:57 zoo.exe >> -rwxr-xr-x+ 2 Paul Bibbings None 65024 Apr 12 14:57 zoo_link.exe > > Umm, that decisively shows that 'link' created a hard link, working as > designed. zoo.exe and zoo_link.exe both have a link count of 2, > compared to the typical link count of 1, so they are one and the same inode. > >> >> Can I ask first of all: does link itself use ln and should I be testing >> this? > > link(1) and ln(1) both call the link(2) syscall (well, ln does that if > you didn't request symlinks). Maybe your confusion stems from wanting a > symlink instead of a hard link? In which case, ln(1) is the only way to > get symlinks; link(1) can _only_ create hard links.
Okay. That makes sense. It must be either that I recollect wrongly that I had used link (instead of ln), or that I had used it in a context where a hard link sufficed for whatever it was that I was trying to do at the time. Thank you for the clarification. Regards Paul Bibbings -- Problem reports: http://cygwin.com/problems.html FAQ: http://cygwin.com/faq/ Documentation: http://cygwin.com/docs.html Unsubscribe info: http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple
