bug#56710: ls vs. stat display of st_size

[Paul Eggert]

On 7/23/22 05:17, Pádraig Brady wrote:

> BTW I see we've code in cache_fstatat() that assumes
> st_size can't have such large values, which contradicts a bit.

Good catch. I installed the first attached patch.


> This is only a real consideration for virtual files I think
> since off_t is signed, and so impractical for a real file system
> to support files > OFF_T_MAX.

Yes, that sounds right.

You've convinced me that 'ls' should switch to the way 'stat' behaves 
rather than vice versa; that's more useful anyway. How about the 
attached second patch, which I haven't installed? (I was actually 
inclined this way originally but got lazy.)

0001-rm-don-t-assume-st_size-is-nonnegative.patch
Description: Text Data

0002-ls-print-negative-file-sizes-as-negative.patch
Description: Text Data