"Richard L. Hamilton" 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 could b
"Richard L. Hamilton" 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 could be
>
> "Richard L. Hamilton" 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
> checke
"Richard L. Hamilton" 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 SUSv3 for
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 tha
