Re: symlinks, lstat, relative/absolute combos
Re: symlinks, lstat, relative/absolute combos
- Subject: Re: symlinks, lstat, relative/absolute combos
- From: Tilghman Lesher <email@hidden>
- Date: Tue, 22 Mar 2011 13:18:16 -0500
- Reply-by: Wed, 19 Jan 2011 16:20:00 -0600
On Tuesday 22 March 2011 13:03:15 James Peach wrote:
> On 22 March 2011 06:08, Steven Abner <email@hidden> wrote:
> > Hi ,
> > I was working on Mac symlinks(unix style) and encountered things I
> > couldn't find information on through web searches. I was thinking
> > these are Mac specific flags and meanings, so with that intro: when
> > you lstat() a symlink, lstat states that st_size will be the size of
> > the pathname for the link, what does it mean when it is a link with
> > st_size = 0, yet it does have a link?
>
> I believe that the st_size of a symlink is a filesystem implementation
> detail. You should not rely on it for anything serious.
That may be, but it's still in POSIX:
http://pubs.opengroup.org/onlinepubs/009695399/functions/lstat.html
I just verified on my own system that it is working correctly for an
HFS+ filesystem. The OP may wish to verify his own code is working
correctly by comparing his output to that of 'stat -x {file}'.
--
Tilghman
_______________________________________________
Do not post admin requests to the list. They will be ignored.
Darwin-dev mailing list (email@hidden)
Help/Unsubscribe/Update your Subscription:
This email sent to email@hidden