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

Antoine Pitrou solipsis at pitrou.net
Sun May 19 16:51:55 CEST 2013

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 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

More information about the Python-Dev mailing list