[Top][All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: [PATCH] canonicalize: add support for not resolving symlinks

From: Pádraig Brady
Subject: Re: [PATCH] canonicalize: add support for not resolving symlinks
Date: Fri, 30 Dec 2011 15:17:00 +0000
User-agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:6.0) Gecko/20110816 Thunderbird/6.0

On 12/30/2011 02:43 PM, Pádraig Brady wrote:
> On 12/30/2011 01:49 PM, Eric Blake wrote:
>> On 12/30/2011 04:04 AM, Jim Meyering wrote:
>>>> -          if (lstat (rname, &st) != 0)
>>>> +          if ((logical?stat:lstat) (rname, &st) != 0)
>>> Please add spaces around operators:
>>>              if ((logical ? stat : lstat) (rname, &st) != 0)
>> Better yet, don't write this as a function pointer conditional, as the
>> gnulib replacement for stat on some platforms has to be a function-like
>> macro (no thanks to 'struct stat').  Using a function pointer
>> conditional risks missing the gnulib macro for stat, and calling the
>> underlying system stat() instead of the intended rpl_stat(), for broken
>> behavior.  You have to use:
>> if (logical ? stat (rname, &st) : lstat (rname, &st)) != 0)
> Ouch. Good catch.
> I'll need to fix in a follow up patch.
> I'll need to adjust such uses in coreutils too.

Actually there is a syntax-check for this in coreutils.
Hence there are no bad uses there.

The snippet I used above was cut and pasted from a comment,
which wasn't apparent as I used `git grep` to search for the
preferred form of the idiom. I thought it a bit strange
that there were no spaces around the operators but didn't
investigate further :)


reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]