Re: Possible spurious cycle detection with fts

[Jim Meyering]

Jim Meyering <address@hidden> wrote:
> James Youngman <address@hidden> wrote:
>> This patch resolves my problem; thanks.  Might I suggest though that
>> you enhance the ChangeLog entry to describe the problem as well as the
>> solution?
>
> This change requires some comment changes, too.
> I'll do both.

I've just checked in these changes:

2005-08-14  Jim Meyering  <address@hidden>

        Sync from coreutils.

        * fts-cycle.c (setup_dir, enter_dir, leave_dir, free_dir):
        Use the hash-table-based cycle-detection code not just when
        FTS_TIGHT_CYCLE_CHECK if specified, but also with FTS_LOGICAL.
        Reported by James Youngman in
        <http://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/bug-gnulib/2005-08/msg00011.html>.
        * fts_.h: Mention that with FTS_LOGICAL, we use FTS_TIGHT_CYCLE_CHECK.
        * fts.c (fts_cross_check) [FTS_DEBUG]: s/active_dir_ht/fts_cycle.ht/.
        This lets us compile with -DFTS_DEBUG, once again.

        * fts.c [! _LIBC]: Include "lstat.h" rather than rolling our own.
        * fts.c (fd_safer): Remove decl.
        Include fcntl--.h rather than unistd-safer.h
        (fts_safe_changedir): Don't call fd_safer; no longer needed
        now that we include fcntl--.h.