Re: [PATCH] stdio-common: Avoid spurious mtime/ctime-related failure in tst-fseek
Andreas Schwab <[email protected]>
| Newsgroups | gmane.comp.lib.glibc.alpha |
|---|---|
| Message-ID | <[email protected]> |
On Sep 02 2026, Florian Weimer wrote:
> diff --git a/stdio-common/tst-fseek.c b/stdio-common/tst-fseek.c
> index 086ede5967..64f1e0a057 100644
> --- a/stdio-common/tst-fseek.c
> +++ b/stdio-common/tst-fseek.c
> @@ -345,12 +345,14 @@ do_test (void)
> printf ("%d: st_mtime not updated\n", __LINE__);
> result = 1;
> }
> - if (st1.st_ctime >= st2.st_ctime)
> + if (st1.st_ctime >= st2.st_ctime
> + && st1.st_ctim.tv_nsec == st2.st_ctim.tv_nsec)
> {
> printf ("%d: st_ctime not changed\n", __LINE__);
> result = 1;
> }
> - if (st1.st_mtime >= st2.st_mtime)
> + if (st1.st_mtime >= st2.st_mtime
> + && st1.st_mtim.tv_nsec == st2.st_mtim.tv_nsec)
> {
> printf ("%d: st_mtime not changed\n", __LINE__);
> result = 1;
What about the other two conditions before those? It's also strange to
use >= instead of ==, as if the test tries to handle time going
backwards in some way.
--
Andreas Schwab, SUSE Labs, [email protected]
GPG Key fingerprint = 0196 BAD8 1CE9 1970 F4BE 1748 E4D4 88E3 0EEA B9D7
"And now for something completely different."