[Python-Dev] HAVE_FSTAT? (original) (raw)

Guido van Rossum gvanrossum at gmail.com
Sun May 19 16:47:14 CEST 2013

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 HAVEFSTAT > ... > #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>

More information about the Python-Dev mailing list