[Logic769]

ls --block-size=0 --si printed the listing and exited 0, because --si (or -h) appearing after --block-size made clap drop the block-size value before it was validated. GNU validates the argument as it is parsed, regardless of option order:

$ ls --block-size=0 --si a.txt
ls: invalid --block-size argument '0'

Validate every command-line --block-size value up front, so an invalid size is rejected even when a later -h/--si changes the display format. The existing last-one-wins behaviour between --block-size and -h/--si is unchanged.

Test: tests/by-util/test_ls.rs::test_ls_invalid_block_size (new cases for --block-size=0 --si and --block-size=invalid --human-readable).

Closes #16008

[sylvestre]

clippy is sad on 7 jobs :)

[sylvestre]

clippy is sad :), and a bunch of jobs are failing

[codspeed]

Merging this PR will degrade performance by 3.46%

3 warnings

⚠️ 8 benchmarks are dominated by system calls

System calls cannot be simulated consistently and are left out of the measure. The reported value understates the real cost. Switch to the Walltime instrument to measure them.

Learn more about system calls

See affected benchmarks

⚠️ 1 benchmark with a significant change ran on different hardware

Its base and head results were measured on machines with a different CPU, core count or memory, so the change might not come from the code. Run base and head on the same runner type.

Learn more about Macro Runners

See affected benchmarks

⚠️ 1 benchmark with a significant change ran in a different software environment

Its base and head results were measured with a different OS or toolchain, such as compiler, runtime or library versions, so the change might come from this difference rather than from the code. Open the benchmark to see what changed.

See affected benchmarks

❌ 1 regressed benchmark
✅ 15 untouched benchmarks
⏩ 456 skipped benchmarks¹

Warning

Please fix the performance issues or acknowledge them on CodSpeed.

Performance Changes

	Mode	Benchmark	BASE	HEAD	Efficiency
❌	CPU Simulation	ls_recursive_balanced_tree[(6, 4, 15)]	96.9 ms	100.4 ms	-3.46%

Tip

Investigate this regression by commenting @codspeedbot fix this regression on this PR, or directly use the CodSpeed MCP with your agent.

---

_{Comparing Logic769:ls-validate-block-size-order (f7b9531) with main (c5ce288)²}

Footnotes

1. 456 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. ↩

2. No successful run was found on main (36a00ef) during the generation of this report, so c5ce288 was used instead as the comparison base. There might be some changes unrelated to this pull request in this report. ↩