On 01/17/2015 08:10 PM, enh wrote: > (even having read the source to send the patch to strace so that they > [will in future] output the times correctly for UTIME_NOW and > UTIME_OMIT when the seconds field isn't 0, and even though "must not > even check the path" is explicitly stated, i guess that was so > obviously wrong it didn't pass my plausibility filter. lucky you had a > test for that case!)
I didn't have a test for it, and it's probably a bug that my code was doing it. I just have this ingrained habit to DROP EVERYTHING when the code does something I can't explain, and stare at it until I've root caused it. (Making a bug go away is not fixing it. A reproducible test case of a failure is gold: I don't just want to beat the correct behavior out of it, I need to know why it _didn't_ work.) (On a related note, I try to test error paths to make sure things _fail_ right. I haven't put enough time into the testsuite same as everything else, and some things like "integer overflow entered from the command line" are arguably pilot error. But "it worked for me" is not a comfortable stopping point.) If you were wondering why I'm so slow at this, I get stuck on the weirdest things... Rob _______________________________________________ Toybox mailing list Toybox@lists.landley.net http://lists.landley.net/listinfo.cgi/toybox-landley.net
