Re: [Python-Dev] HAVE_FSTAT?
Hi. My 2 cents about this: (well I'm only a noob) I had this problem; I don't know about other people's environment, but my environment's problem was that it was actually not POSIX-compliant: it didn't have other file functions as well, but anyway the `fstat` error is the FIRST error you get when you compile in such environments, so people as unaware as me think the problem is with fstat only. Anyway I think if you are going to remove anything, you should think in terms of POSIX-compliancy of the target system. Removing HAVE_FSTAT might be fine (as user can easily write his own version of the function and have it included into the python's sources), but if you instead provide the user with the ability to use his custom functions when POSIX one's aren't available, it would help make python compile on even more platforms. Sorry if this last one was off-topic. Best regards. ___ Python-Dev mailing list Python-Dev@python.org http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-dev Unsubscribe: http://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-dev/archive%40mail-archive.com
Re: [Python-Dev] HAVE_FSTAT?
On Mon, 20 May 2013 01:09:19 +1000
Nick Coghlan wrote:
> On Mon, May 20, 2013 at 12:51 AM, Antoine Pitrou wrote:
> > On Sun, 19 May 2013 07:47:14 -0700 (PDT)
> > "Guido van Rossum" wrote:
> >> Fake values would probably cause hard to debug problems. It's a long
> >> standing Python tradition not to offer low level APIs that the platform
> >> doesn't have.
> >
> > I meant the platform, not Python.
>
> For CPython derivatives like PyMite, it can help to get things to compile.
It's not a CPython derivative.
Regards
Antoine.
>
> Perhaps rather than dropping it, we can just replace all the complex
> fallback code with code that triggers 'RuntimeError("Operation
> requires fstat, which is not available on this platform")'.
>
> Derivatives that support fstat-free platforms will have a clear place
> to put their custom code, but we get the simpler assumption of fstat
> always being available for the code paths we care about (and can
> reasonably test).
>
> Cheers,
> Nick.
>
> --
> Nick Coghlan | ncogh...@gmail.com | Brisbane, Australia
___
Python-Dev mailing list
Python-Dev@python.org
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-dev
Unsubscribe:
http://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-dev/archive%40mail-archive.com
Re: [Python-Dev] HAVE_FSTAT?
On Mon, May 20, 2013 at 12:51 AM, Antoine Pitrou wrote:
> On Sun, 19 May 2013 07:47:14 -0700 (PDT)
> "Guido van Rossum" wrote:
>> Fake values would probably cause hard to debug problems. It's a long
>> standing Python tradition not to offer low level APIs that the platform
>> doesn't have.
>
> I meant the platform, not Python.
For CPython derivatives like PyMite, it can help to get things to compile.
Perhaps rather than dropping it, we can just replace all the complex
fallback code with code that triggers 'RuntimeError("Operation
requires fstat, which is not available on this platform")'.
Derivatives that support fstat-free platforms will have a clear place
to put their custom code, but we get the simpler assumption of fstat
always being available for the code paths we care about (and can
reasonably test).
Cheers,
Nick.
--
Nick Coghlan | ncogh...@gmail.com | Brisbane, Australia
___
Python-Dev mailing list
Python-Dev@python.org
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-dev
Unsubscribe:
http://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-dev/archive%40mail-archive.com
Re: [Python-Dev] HAVE_FSTAT?
On Sun, 19 May 2013 07:47:14 -0700 (PDT) "Guido van Rossum" wrote: > Fake values would probably cause hard to debug problems. It's a long standing > Python tradition not to offer low level APIs that the platform doesn't have. I meant the platform, not Python. Regards Antoine. > — > Sent from Mailbox > > On Sun, May 19, 2013 at 5:20 AM, Antoine Pitrou > wrote: > > > On Sun, 19 May 2013 10:08:39 +0200 > > Charles-François Natali wrote: > >> 2013/5/17 Antoine Pitrou : > >> > > >> > Hello, > >> > > >> > Some pieces of code are still guarded by: > >> > #ifdef HAVE_FSTAT > >> > ... > >> > #endif > >> > > >> > I would expect all systems to have fstat() these days. It's pretty > >> > basic POSIX, and even Windows has had it for ages. Shouldn't we simply > >> > make those code blocks unconditional? It would avoid having to maintain > >> > unused fallback paths. > >> > >> I was sure I'd seen a post/bug report about this: > >> http://bugs.python.org/issue12082 > >> > >> The OP was trying to build Python on an embedded platform without fstat(). > > Ah, right. Ok, judging by the answers I'm being consistent in my > > opinions :-) > > I still wonder why an embedded platform can't provide at least some > > emulation of fstat(), even by returning fake values. Not providing > > such a basic function must break a lot of existing third-party software. > > Regards > > Antoine. > > ___ > > Python-Dev mailing list > > Python-Dev@python.org > > http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-dev > > Unsubscribe: > > http://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-dev/guido%40python.org ___ Python-Dev mailing list Python-Dev@python.org http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-dev Unsubscribe: http://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-dev/archive%40mail-archive.com
Re: [Python-Dev] HAVE_FSTAT?
Fake values would probably cause hard to debug problems. It's a long standing Python tradition not to offer low level APIs that the platform doesn't have. — Sent from Mailbox On Sun, May 19, 2013 at 5:20 AM, Antoine Pitrou wrote: > On Sun, 19 May 2013 10:08:39 +0200 > Charles-François Natali wrote: >> 2013/5/17 Antoine Pitrou : >> > >> > Hello, >> > >> > Some pieces of code are still guarded by: >> > #ifdef HAVE_FSTAT >> > ... >> > #endif >> > >> > I would expect all systems to have fstat() these days. It's pretty >> > basic POSIX, and even Windows has had it for ages. Shouldn't we simply >> > make those code blocks unconditional? It would avoid having to maintain >> > unused fallback paths. >> >> I was sure I'd seen a post/bug report about this: >> http://bugs.python.org/issue12082 >> >> The OP was trying to build Python on an embedded platform without fstat(). > Ah, right. Ok, judging by the answers I'm being consistent in my > opinions :-) > I still wonder why an embedded platform can't provide at least some > emulation of fstat(), even by returning fake values. Not providing > such a basic function must break a lot of existing third-party software. > Regards > Antoine. > ___ > Python-Dev mailing list > Python-Dev@python.org > http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-dev > Unsubscribe: > http://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-dev/guido%40python.org___ Python-Dev mailing list Python-Dev@python.org http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-dev Unsubscribe: http://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-dev/archive%40mail-archive.com
Re: [Python-Dev] HAVE_FSTAT?
On Sun, 19 May 2013 10:08:39 +0200 Charles-François Natali wrote: > 2013/5/17 Antoine Pitrou : > > > > Hello, > > > > Some pieces of code are still guarded by: > > #ifdef HAVE_FSTAT > > ... > > #endif > > > > I would expect all systems to have fstat() these days. It's pretty > > basic POSIX, and even Windows has had it for ages. Shouldn't we simply > > make those code blocks unconditional? It would avoid having to maintain > > unused fallback paths. > > I was sure I'd seen a post/bug report about this: > http://bugs.python.org/issue12082 > > The OP was trying to build Python on an embedded platform without fstat(). Ah, right. Ok, judging by the answers I'm being consistent in my opinions :-) I still wonder why an embedded platform can't provide at least some emulation of fstat(), even by returning fake values. Not providing such a basic function must break a lot of existing third-party software. Regards Antoine. ___ Python-Dev mailing list Python-Dev@python.org http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-dev Unsubscribe: http://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-dev/archive%40mail-archive.com
Re: [Python-Dev] HAVE_FSTAT?
2013/5/17 Antoine Pitrou : > > Hello, > > Some pieces of code are still guarded by: > #ifdef HAVE_FSTAT > ... > #endif > > I would expect all systems to have fstat() these days. It's pretty > basic POSIX, and even Windows has had it for ages. Shouldn't we simply > make those code blocks unconditional? It would avoid having to maintain > unused fallback paths. I was sure I'd seen a post/bug report about this: http://bugs.python.org/issue12082 The OP was trying to build Python on an embedded platform without fstat(). cf ___ Python-Dev mailing list Python-Dev@python.org http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-dev Unsubscribe: http://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-dev/archive%40mail-archive.com
Re: [Python-Dev] HAVE_FSTAT?
I've had a quick look with grep -R HAVE_ * | egrep '[.]c:'. Modules/posixmodule.c has HAVE_UTIME_H and it might be standard libc on all posix platforms. Objects/obmalloc.c has HAVE_MMAP… but I guess that's fine given other platforms might not have such facility. Depending on the granularity (on a per platform or per feature) probably yes, there aren't many left. I hope this helps On 17 May 2013, at 16:56, Antoine Pitrou wrote: > On Fri, 17 May 2013 09:15:29 -0500 > Skip Montanaro wrote: >>> Some pieces of code are still guarded by: >>> #ifdef HAVE_FSTAT >>> ... >>> #endif >> >> Are there other guards for similarly common libc functions? > > I don't think so. Someone should take a look though :-) > > Regards > > Antoine. > ___ > Python-Dev mailing list > Python-Dev@python.org > http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-dev > Unsubscribe: > http://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-dev/a.cavallo%40cavallinux.eu ___ Python-Dev mailing list Python-Dev@python.org http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-dev Unsubscribe: http://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-dev/archive%40mail-archive.com
Re: [Python-Dev] HAVE_FSTAT?
On Fri, 17 May 2013 09:15:29 -0500 Skip Montanaro wrote: > > Some pieces of code are still guarded by: > > #ifdef HAVE_FSTAT > > ... > > #endif > > Are there other guards for similarly common libc functions? I don't think so. Someone should take a look though :-) Regards Antoine. ___ Python-Dev mailing list Python-Dev@python.org http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-dev Unsubscribe: http://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-dev/archive%40mail-archive.com
Re: [Python-Dev] HAVE_FSTAT?
> Some pieces of code are still guarded by: > #ifdef HAVE_FSTAT > ... > #endif Are there other guards for similarly common libc functions? If so, perhaps each one should be removed in a series of change sets, one per guard. Skip ___ Python-Dev mailing list Python-Dev@python.org http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-dev Unsubscribe: http://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-dev/archive%40mail-archive.com
Re: [Python-Dev] HAVE_FSTAT?
2013/5/17 Antoine Pitrou : > > Hello, > > Some pieces of code are still guarded by: > #ifdef HAVE_FSTAT > ... > #endif > > I would expect all systems to have fstat() these days. It's pretty > basic POSIX, and even Windows has had it for ages. Shouldn't we simply > make those code blocks unconditional? It would avoid having to maintain > unused fallback paths. +1 (Maybe Snakebite has such an exotic system, though?) :) -- Regards, Benjamin ___ Python-Dev mailing list Python-Dev@python.org http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-dev Unsubscribe: http://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-dev/archive%40mail-archive.com
[Python-Dev] HAVE_FSTAT?
Hello, Some pieces of code are still guarded by: #ifdef HAVE_FSTAT ... #endif I would expect all systems to have fstat() these days. It's pretty basic POSIX, and even Windows has had it for ages. Shouldn't we simply make those code blocks unconditional? It would avoid having to maintain unused fallback paths. Regards Antoine. ___ Python-Dev mailing list Python-Dev@python.org http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-dev Unsubscribe: http://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-dev/archive%40mail-archive.com
