ls: ls -lF symlink target indicators

[joknarf]

Fixes #11542
gnu output incompatibility with --classify on symlink targets

before:

 • ls -lF mylink*
lrwxrwxrwx 1 user group 5 Nov 22 08:33 mylinktodir@ -> mydir
lrwxrwxrwx 1 user group 9 Nov 22 08:31 mylinktoexe@ -> myexec.sh
lrwxrwxrwx 1 user group 6 Nov 22 08:34 mylinktofile@ -> myfile
lrwxrwxrwx 1 user group 6 Nov 22 08:47 mylinktopipe@ -> mypipe
lrwxrwxrwx 1 user group 6 Mar 29 10:42 mylinktosock@ -> mysock

after (gnu identical output):

 • gnuls -lF mylink*
lrwxrwxrwx 1 user group 5 Nov 22 09:33 mylinktodir -> mydir/
lrwxrwxrwx 1 user group 9 Nov 22 09:31 mylinktoexe -> myexec.sh*
lrwxrwxrwx 1 user group 6 Nov 22 09:34 mylinktofile -> myfile
lrwxrwxrwx 1 user group 6 Nov 22 09:47 mylinktopipe -> mypipe|
lrwxrwxrwx 1 user group 6 Mar 29 10:42 mylinktosock -> mysock=

[Alonely0]

Looks fine, but there are a lot of removed comments (vibecode?) and unnecessary performance hits.

[github-actions]

GNU testsuite comparison:

Skip an intermittent issue tests/date/date-locale-hour (fails in this run but passes in the 'main' branch)
Skip an intermittent issue tests/tail/inotify-dir-recreate (fails in this run but passes in the 'main' branch)
Skip an intermittent issue tests/tty/tty-eof (fails in this run but passes in the 'main' branch)
Congrats! The gnu test tests/seq/seq-epipe is now passing!

[codspeed-hq]

Merging this PR will degrade performance by 5.34%

⚠️ Different runtime environments detected

Some benchmarks with significant performance changes were compared across different runtime environments,
which may affect the accuracy of the results.

Open the report in CodSpeed to investigate

⚡ 5 improved benchmarks
❌ 6 regressed benchmarks
✅ 298 untouched benchmarks
⏩ 46 skipped benchmarks¹

⚠️ Please fix the performance issues or acknowledge them on CodSpeed.

Performance Changes

	Mode	Benchmark	BASE	HEAD	Efficiency
❌	Simulation	cksum_crc32b	13 ms	13.7 ms	-5.34%
❌	Simulation	cksum_sha256	1.7 s	1.8 s	-4.04%
⚡	Simulation	cksum_blake2b	192.7 ms	183.9 ms	+4.8%
❌	Simulation	cksum_sha224	1.7 s	1.8 s	-4.05%
❌	Simulation	cksum_sha2	1.7 s	1.8 s	-4.04%
⚡	Simulation	split_bytes	401.8 µs	389.7 µs	+3.1%
⚡	Simulation	du_max_depth_balanced_tree[(6, 4, 10)]	26.1 ms	25.3 ms	+3.24%
⚡	Simulation	fold_custom_width[50000]	25.3 ms	22.9 ms	+10.22%
⚡	Simulation	fold_many_lines[100000]	63.8 ms	57.3 ms	+11.41%
❌	Simulation	nl_large_file[10]	24.1 ms	25 ms	-3.73%
❌	Simulation	nl_many_lines[100000]	18.9 ms	19.6 ms	-3.68%

---

_{Comparing joknarf:classify_target (2d69012) with main (5b54e08)}

Footnotes

1. 46 benchmarks were skipped, so the baseline results were used instead. If they were deleted from the codebase, click here and archive them to remove them from the performance reports. ↩

[sylvestre]

please fix the failing tasks

[Alonely0]

@joknarf For the perf-related changes I requested, please try to git-apply this patch. It should also fix the formatting-related CI failures.
perf.patch

[Alonely0]

I'm happy to sign off on this code provided CI likes it, but I'd still like to save those comments and (while I don't really care), I would appreciate if you could mark me as a co-author of the apply commit and give it a descriptive name, i.e:

fix(ls): take care of performance regressions

Co-authored-by: Guillem L. Jara <4lon3ly0@tutanota.com>

Since you're gonna have to do an interactive rebase, while you're at it please change your commits to follow our etiquette. Split 4ef7830 into a fix commit and a chore one that adds the test (squash the cSpell fix onto it), and use our naming conventions for them.

[joknarf]

I'm happy to sign off on this code provided CI likes it, but I'd still like to save those comments and (while I don't really care), I would appreciate if you could mark me as a co-author of the apply commit and give it a descriptive name, i.e:

fix(ls): take care of performance regressions

Co-authored-by: Guillem L. Jara <4lon3ly0@tutanota.com>

Since you're gonna have to do an interactive rebase, while you're at it please change your commits to follow our etiquette. Split 4ef7830 into a fix commit and a chore one that adds the test (squash the cSpell fix onto it), and use our naming conventions for them.

Ok, I hope I did what you expect, Thank you

[joknarf]

uutils/gnu ls output comparison:

[Alonely0]

Signed off, looks good to me. Thanks @joknarf!

@sylvestre can we get a CI run?

[github-actions]

GNU testsuite comparison:

Skip an intermittent issue tests/tty/tty-eof (fails in this run but passes in the 'main' branch)
Skipping an intermittent issue tests/pr/bounded-memory (passes in this run but fails in the 'main' branch)
Note: The gnu test tests/printf/printf-surprise is now being skipped but was previously passing.
Note: The gnu test tests/tail/pipe-f is now being skipped but was previously passing.
Congrats! The gnu test tests/unexpand/bounded-memory is now passing!

[github-actions]

GNU testsuite comparison:

Skip an intermittent issue tests/date/resolution (fails in this run but passes in the 'main' branch)
Skipping an intermittent issue tests/date/date-locale-hour (passes in this run but fails in the 'main' branch)
Skipping an intermittent issue tests/pr/bounded-memory (passes in this run but fails in the 'main' branch)

[Alonely0]

CI passes, it's x64 macOS timeout bugs at it again.

[github-actions]

GNU testsuite comparison:

Skip an intermittent issue tests/date/resolution (fails in this run but passes in the 'main' branch)
Skipping an intermittent issue tests/tty/tty-eof (passes in this run but fails in the 'main' branch)
Note: The gnu test tests/cut/cut-huge-range is now being skipped but was previously passing.
Note: The gnu test tests/printf/printf-surprise is now being skipped but was previously passing.
Note: The gnu test tests/tail/tail-n0f is now being skipped but was previously passing.