From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.1.3 (2006-06-01) on yquem.inria.fr X-Spam-Level: * X-Spam-Status: No, score=1.5 required=5.0 tests=AWL,SPF_SOFTFAIL autolearn=disabled version=3.1.3 Received: from discorde.inria.fr (discorde.inria.fr [192.93.2.38]) by yquem.inria.fr (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0B9B9BC0A for ; Mon, 26 Feb 2007 23:51:03 +0100 (CET) Received: from smtp.janestcapital.com (www.janestcapital.com [66.155.124.107]) by discorde.inria.fr (8.13.6/8.13.6) with ESMTP id l1QMp049016022 for ; Mon, 26 Feb 2007 23:51:00 +0100 Received: from [192.168.250.217] [209.213.205.130] by janestcapital.com with ESMTP (SMTPD-9.10) id A44F0370; Mon, 26 Feb 2007 17:50:55 -0500 Message-ID: <45E3644E.60806@gnu.org> Date: Mon, 26 Feb 2007 17:50:54 -0500 From: Sam Steingold User-Agent: Thunderbird 1.5.0.8 (X11/20061107) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Richard Jones Cc: caml-list@inria.fr Subject: Re: vacuous findlib warnings References: <45E2FFF2.7060903@gnu.org> <20070226223342.GA25086@furbychan.cocan.org> In-Reply-To: <20070226223342.GA25086@furbychan.cocan.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Miltered: at discorde with ID 45E36454.000 by Joe's j-chkmail (http://j-chkmail . ensmp . fr)! X-Spam: no; 0.00; findlib:01 findlib:01 cmi:01 lib:01 lib:01 cmi:01 26,:98 wrote:01 wrote:01 interfaces:01 symbolic:01 objects:02 warnings:03 warnings:03 gnu:03 Richard Jones wrote: > On Mon, Feb 26, 2007 at 10:42:42AM -0500, Sam Steingold wrote: >> I see findlib warnings like this: >> findlib: [WARNING] Interface qbase.cmi occurs in several directories: >> ../../lib, . >> this is because there is indeed ../../lib/qbase.cmi which is a symbolic >> link pointing to ./qbase.cmi (so there is no real duplication, the files >> point to the same inode). >> >> Is it possible to modify findlib to check that the files are really >> different disk objects (inodes) before issuing the warning? > > Agreed. Even better if it could compare the md5 of the interfaces. "=" vs "=="? :-) I would rather not use a checksum here - it has no advantage over an honest cmp(1). Actually, cmp(1) is probably faster (because it does not have to read the whole file to give a negative answer), and it returns TRT (no false positives). Sam.