[PATCH] ld: don't use SAME_INODE for the duplicate-script check on hosts without inodes

[Jan Dubiec]

On 22.08.2026 05:58, Alan Modra wrote:
> On Tue, Aug 18, 2026 at 12:48:05PM +0200, Jan Dubiec wrote:
>> On 18.08.2026 08:00, Alan Modra wrote:
>> [...]
>>
>>> That says there is a bug in SAME_INODE, and in upstream gnulib too.
>>> I will apply the following.
>> IMO, it would also be nice to mark pr24576-1 and pr24576-2 as XFAIL rather
>> than simply skipping them. Perhaps duplicate detection on Windows will be
>> fixed at some point in the future.
> 
> I question whether all filesystems on Windows have st_ino zero.
> https://learn.microsoft.com/en-us/cpp/c-runtime-library/reference/stat-functions?view=msvc-170
> says that st_ino on FAT, HPFS, and NTFS "has no meaning" and from that
> we assume st_ino of zero.

Agreed. BTW. What value does st_ino have on Linux for a file on a FAT 
filesystem?

> 
> Cole's patch, and the one I committed both allow for the possibility
> of st_ino being valid on Windows, which means that if you xfail the
> tests you'll get XPASS if st_ino is valid.  So I think it best to
> leave the testsuite as is.
> 

I don't see anything wrong with XFAIL turning into XPASS at some point. 
IMO, XFAIL/XPASS convey quite similar information ("the issue here is 
known and it's not fatal"), which is better than having no information 
at all.

/J.D.