[Python-Dev] HAVE_FSTAT?

[Antoine Pitrou]

On Sun, 19 May 2013 07:47:14 -0700 (PDT)
"Guido van Rossum" <gvanrossum at gmail.com> wrote:
> Fake values would probably cause hard to debug problems. It's a long standing Python tradition not to offer low level APIs that the platform doesn't have.

I meant the platform, not Python.

Regards

Antoine.


> —
> Sent from Mailbox
> 
> On Sun, May 19, 2013 at 5:20 AM, Antoine Pitrou <solipsis at pitrou.net>
> wrote:
> 
> > On Sun, 19 May 2013 10:08:39 +0200
> > Charles-François Natali <cf.natali at gmail.com> wrote:
> >> 2013/5/17 Antoine Pitrou <solipsis at pitrou.net>:
> >> >
> >> > Hello,
> >> >
> >> > Some pieces of code are still guarded by:
> >> > #ifdef HAVE_FSTAT
> >> >   ...
> >> > #endif
> >> >
> >> > I would expect all systems to have fstat() these days. It's pretty
> >> > basic POSIX, and even Windows has had it for ages. Shouldn't we simply
> >> > make those code blocks unconditional? It would avoid having to maintain
> >> > unused fallback paths.
> >> 
> >> I was sure I'd seen a post/bug report about this:
> >> http://bugs.python.org/issue12082
> >> 
> >> The OP was trying to build Python on an embedded platform without fstat().
> > Ah, right. Ok, judging by the answers I'm being consistent in my
> > opinions :-)
> > I still wonder why an embedded platform can't provide at least some
> > emulation of fstat(), even by returning fake values. Not providing
> > such a basic function must break a lot of existing third-party software.
> > Regards
> > Antoine.
> > _______________________________________________
> > Python-Dev mailing list
> > Python-Dev at python.org
> > http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-dev
> > Unsubscribe: http://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-dev/guido%40python.org