solipsis at pitrou.net
Sun May 19 14:19:04 CEST 2013
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:
> 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
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.
More information about the Python-Dev