Re: symlinks, lstat, relative/absolute combos
Re: symlinks, lstat, relative/absolute combos
- Subject: Re: symlinks, lstat, relative/absolute combos
- From: James Peach <email@hidden>
- Date: Tue, 22 Mar 2011 12:56:20 -0700
On 22 March 2011 11:18, Tilghman Lesher <email@hidden> 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
Not every filesystem is posix compliant.
>
> 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
>
--
James Peach | email@hidden
_______________________________________________
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