X-Recipient: archive-cygwin AT delorie DOT com X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Date: Mon, 12 Oct 2009 13:59:18 +0200 From: Corinna Vinschen To: cygwin AT cygwin DOT com Subject: Re: hardlink giving out .lnk? Message-ID: <20091012115918.GA11406@calimero.vinschen.de> Reply-To: cygwin AT cygwin DOT com Mail-Followup-To: cygwin AT cygwin DOT com References: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.17 (2007-11-01) Mailing-List: contact cygwin-help AT cygwin DOT com; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: cygwin-owner AT cygwin DOT com Mail-Followup-To: cygwin AT cygwin DOT com Delivered-To: mailing list cygwin AT cygwin DOT com On Oct 12 11:51, Julio Costa wrote: > Something strange... at least to me. > STC: > > /tmp$ uname -a > CYGWIN_NT-5.1 PT00062412 1.7.0(0.214/5/3) 2009-10-03 14:33 i686 Cygwin > /tmp$ ls -l /dev/log > srw-rw-rw- 1 SYSTEM root 53 Oct 9 23:12 /dev/log > /tmp$ ln /dev/log log > /tmp$ ls -l > total 1 > srw-rw-rw- 2 SYSTEM root 53 Oct 9 23:12 log.lnk > > HUH? .lnk?? This is a **hard link**. And even if it was a symbolic, > there's no more .lnk, unless we ask explicitely, right? > > FYI, I can do a ln -s log.lnk log, and it still works (eg., with > logger), AFAICS. > But this is probably not the intended way of working. No, it isn't. Thanks for the report. I fixed this Cygwin bug in CVS, together with the other bug visible above. There's no good reason to return a size != 0 for sockets in calls to stat(2). Corinna -- Corinna Vinschen Please, send mails regarding Cygwin to Cygwin Project Co-Leader cygwin AT cygwin DOT com Red Hat -- Problem reports: http://cygwin.com/problems.html FAQ: http://cygwin.com/faq/ Documentation: http://cygwin.com/docs.html Unsubscribe info: http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple