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 17:44:48 -0500
- Reply-by: Wed, 19 Jan 2011 16:20:00 -0600
On Tuesday 22 March 2011 14:56:20 James Peach wrote:
> 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.
If it's a native filesystem of Mac OS X, which the devfs filesystem certainly
is, then for Apple to claim that Mac OS X conforms to POSIX 1003.1 (which
it does), the kernel developers need to fix the bug.
I realize I may be stepping on some toes, but denying that it's a bug is
a ridiculous stance.
--
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