Op 06-03-18 om 09:19 schreef Herbert Xu: > On Thu, Jun 22, 2017 at 10:30:02AM +0200, Petr Skočík wrote: >> would you be willing to pull something like this? [...] >> I could use greater resolution in `test -nt` / `test -ot`, and st_mtim >> field is standardized under POSIX.1-2008 (or so stat(2) says). > > Sure. But your patch is corrupted. Fixed patch attached. But I wouldn't apply it as is. My system does not have st_mtim. So I think it needs a configure test and a fallback to the old method. - M.
diff --git a/src/bltin/test.c b/src/bltin/test.c index 58c05fe..7ea02f2 100644 --- a/src/bltin/test.c +++ b/src/bltin/test.c @@ -478,7 +478,9 @@ newerf (const char *f1, const char *f2) return (stat (f1, &b1) == 0 && stat (f2, &b2) == 0 && - b1.st_mtime > b2.st_mtime); + ( b1.st_mtim.tv_sec > b2.st_mtim.tv_sec || + (b1.st_mtim.tv_sec == b2.st_mtim.tv_sec && (b1.st_mtim.tv_nsec > b2.st_mtim.tv_nsec ))) + ); } static int @@ -488,7 +490,9 @@ olderf (const char *f1, const char *f2) return (stat (f1, &b1) == 0 && stat (f2, &b2) == 0 && - b1.st_mtime < b2.st_mtime); + (b1.st_mtim.tv_sec < b2.st_mtim.tv_sec || + (b1.st_mtim.tv_sec == b2.st_mtim.tv_sec && (b1.st_mtim.tv_nsec < b2.st_mtim.tv_nsec ))) + ); } static int
