Date: Sat, 19 Jun 2004 20:43:35 +0100 From: Scott Mitchell <scott+freebsd@fishballoon.org> To: Tim Kientzle <kientzle@freebsd.org> Cc: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org Subject: Re: /bin/ls sorting bug? Message-ID: <20040619194335.GD462@tuatara.fishballoon.org> In-Reply-To: <40D48A39.30401@freebsd.org> References: <20040619175007.GB462@tuatara.fishballoon.org> <40D48A39.30401@freebsd.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Sat, Jun 19, 2004 at 11:47:21AM -0700, Tim Kientzle wrote: > Scott Mitchell wrote: > > > >ls(1) says that the -t option will: > > > > Sort by time modified (most recently modified first) before sort- > > ing the operands by lexicographical order. > > > >... the attached patch produces the expected output. I can commit it if > >there > >are no objections. > > Looks good to me. I wonder if the time sorting should > include the nanos field as well. (Mostly on FreeBSD, > the nanos field is zero, but not always.) I don't see why not, unless some standard requires the nanos to be ignored. That would be pretty strange though... > Of course, sorting on the (non-displayed) nanos field > could also produce such unexpected output as you describe. I guess you'd want yet another option to display the full-resolution timestamp, if you were going to sort on the whole thing. And you'd still want to use the name to break ties. Scott -- =========================================================================== Scott Mitchell | PGP Key ID | "Eagles may soar, but weasels Cambridge, England | 0x54B171B9 | don't get sucked into jet engines" scott at fishballoon.org | 0xAA775B8B | -- Anon
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20040619194335.GD462>