Re: symlinks, lstat, relative/absolute combos
Re: symlinks, lstat, relative/absolute combos
- Subject: Re: symlinks, lstat, relative/absolute combos
- From: Steven Abner <email@hidden>
- Date: Tue, 22 Mar 2011 14:25:40 -0400
On Mar 22, 2011, at 2:18 PM, Tilghman Lesher wrote:
> 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}'
I had only found one instance so far where the Mac returned st_size = 0. I didn't wish to assume anything! The case was in testing "/dev/stdin"
which has relative link to "fd/0". _______________________________________________
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