ls -i vs. stat()

[Randal Schwartz]

In article <1990Aug23.225411.10266 at rice.edu>, jsulliva at killington (Jeff Sullivan) writes:
| I have noticed that 'ls -i' is giving different i-numbers for linked
| files, while stat() says that they are the same.  This was noticed on
| SunOS 4.0.3.
[program deleted]
| 	$ stattest stat.*
| 	i-number = 2953       stat.c
| 	i-number = 2953       stat.link
| 	$ ln -i stat.*
| 	  2953 stat.c      38379 stat.link
| 
| Is this the correct output for the 'ls -i' command?  I would expect all
| links to have the same i-number as the original.

My guess is that stat.link is a symlink pointing at stat.c.  (I can't tell
from the info you give.)  The stat(2) syscall gives you information on the
pointed-at file, while "ls -i" is giving you the real inode information.
If you want different numbers in your C program, use lstat(2) instead of
stat(2).  If you want the same number from "ln -i", use real links, not
symlinks.

Just another Unix hacker,

/=Randal L. Schwartz, Stonehenge Consulting Services (503)777-0095 ==========\
| on contract to Intel's iWarp project, Beaverton, Oregon, USA, Sol III      |
| merlyn at iwarp.intel.com ...!any-MX-mailer-like-uunet!iwarp.intel.com!merlyn |
\=Cute Quote: "Welcome to Portland, Oregon, home of the California Raisins!"=/