[Python-Dev] HAVE_FSTAT?

[Guido van Rossum]

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.
—
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
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mail.python.org/pipermail/python-dev/attachments/20130519/11c38eae/attachment.html>