Re: [PATCH] ls: don't use an undefined struct stat after failed stat/lstat

[Jim Meyering]

Pádraig Brady wrote:
> Jim Meyering wrote:
>> Thanks for the review.
>> BTW, here's the merged version:
>
> And attached one handles the `ls -Ls` case,
> which I'll push soon.
>
> cheers,
> Pádraig.
>>From 3edaa2363db0367e8fa472c4dc5c5696537cde61 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
> From: =?utf-8?q?P=C3=A1draig=20Brady?= <address@hidden>
> Date: Tue, 29 Sep 2009 15:43:01 +0100
> Subject: [PATCH] ls: always print "?" for allocated size of a dereferenced 
> dangling symlink
>
> Previously for `ls -Ls` (but not `ls -Lsl`), we referenced
> the st_blocks returned from the previous failed stat() call.
> This undefined value was seen to be 0 for danglink symlinks at least.
> * src/ls.c (print_file_name_and_frills, length_of_file_name_and_frills):
> Don't use st_blocks if the previous stat() failed
> * tests/ls/dangle: Add a test case
> * NEWS: Mention the bug fix

Good catch.  Thanks!