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

On Tue, Aug 18, 2026 at 06:30:59AM +0000, Cole Munz wrote:
> On Tue, Aug 18, 2026 at 03:30:44PM +0930, Alan Modra wrote:
> > That says there is a bug in SAME_INODE, and in upstream gnulib too.
> > I will apply the following.
> 
> Agreed, and that is the right layer for it. I tested the two macros side by
> side:
> 
>   two different files on D: (st_ino 0, st_dev 3)
>      old -> 1   treats them as the same file
>      new -> 0   correct
>   two different files on drive 0 (st_ino 0, st_dev 0)
>      old -> 0   new -> 0
>   same file, real inode info
>      old -> 1   new -> 1   still detects real duplicates
>   different files, real inode info
>      old -> 0   new -> 0
> 
> So it removes the false positive without weakening the case where inodes
> work.
> 
> One consequence worth a decision. Once SAME_INODE is false whenever st_ino
> is 0, ld's PR 24576 check goes inert on native Windows, so someone who does
> pass the same script twice there gets no diagnostic at all.

Right.  binutils-2.33 through binutils-2.45 had checks that compared
file names, which worked on windows except when people were creative
with paths.  binutils-2.46 had no check on windows and binutile-2.47
was broken by me noticing the check wasn't enabled.

I'll apply your patch.

> My patch kept
> that check alive on such hosts by falling back to a name comparison when
> stat gives nothing usable.
> 
> Either is defensible. Drop my ld patch and let PR 24576 only cover hosts
> with real inodes, or take same-inode.h plus the name fallback and keep the
> diagnostic everywhere. I have no preference, I just did not want the check
> to go quiet as a side effect rather than as a choice.
> 
> Cole

-- 
Alan Modra