Re: [PATCH] ld: don't use SAME_INODE for the duplicate-script check on hosts without inodes

On 18.08.2026 12:48, Jan Dubiec wrote:
> IMO, it would also be nice to mark pr24576-1 and pr24576-2 as XFAIL
> rather than simply skipping them. Perhaps duplicate detection on Windows
> will be fixed at some point in the future.

Agreed that XFAIL records it better than a skip. Worth treating the two
separately though, because they stop failing at different points.

  pr24576-1.d: -T default-script.t -T default-script.t
  pr24576-2.d: -T ././/default-script.t -T default-script.t

With only the same-inode.h change, SAME_INODE is false for every pair on
Windows, so both fail and both want XFAIL.

With the name fallback as well, -1 compares two identical strings and
passes there. -2 is exactly the spelling a name comparison cannot see,
which is why it was written that way, so it stays XFAIL either way
unless someone canonicalises the path first.

So how many of them need the marker depends on which fix goes in, and
that is Alan's call rather than mine.

Cole