From:	sandmann AT clio DOT rice DOT edu (Charles Sandmann)
Message-Id:	<10209020454.AA16618@clio.rice.edu>
Subject:	Re: Two rm.exe issues on XP
To:	acottrel AT ihug DOT com DOT au (Andrew Cottrell)
Date:	Sun, 1 Sep 2002 23:54:47 -0500 (CDT)
Cc:	rich AT phekda DOT freeserve DOT co DOT uk (Richard Dawe), djgpp-workers AT delorie DOT com
In-Reply-To:	<003501c2517e$2e4fdc30$0100a8c0@p4> from "Andrew Cottrell" at Sep 01, 2002 04:09:18 PM
X-Mailer:	ELM [version 2.5 PL2]
Mime-Version:	1.0
Reply-To:	djgpp-workers AT delorie DOT com
Errors-To:	nobody AT delorie DOT com
X-Mailing-List:	djgpp-workers AT delorie DOT com
X-Unsubscribes-To:	listserv AT delorie DOT com

> > Using the rm.exe from simtel's fil41b.zip; and creating the exact
> > directories/names as you did above, this works fine on my Win2K system.
> I didn't try this yesterday, but I did once I read the email and the rm.exe
> from simtel's fil41b.zip works fine with the example. I now expect that the
> problem is in a 2.04 CVS LIBC change or series of changes.

Confirmed - on Win2K the cvs libc built rm.exe fails like it does on
your XP system.  So CVS is broken compared to V2.03 refresh.

> I have occasionally seen the inode error display on me for no apparent
> reason. The error is :-
>         "ERROR: the directory %s initially had device/inode\n\
>         numbers %lu/%lu, but now (after a chdir into it), the numbers for
> `.'\n\
>         are %lu/%lu.  That means that while rm was running, the directory\n\
>         was replaced with either another directory or a link to another
> directory."),

I haven't been using filutils 4.1 on Win2K, so I don't know if I would
see this - but it seems to indicate our inode algorithm for Win2K isn't
reproducible.  Has the algorithm changed between V2.03 and CVS?

> mode 3000       st_ino 1        st_dev 1CFF70
> 872     886     422     FAIL 426        897     943     957     985     738

I see the "FAIL" and this makes me concerned that some call died?

- Raw text -