On 9/7/06, Emelyanov Alexey <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > 2006-09-06 Andrew W. Nosenko <[EMAIL PROTECTED] > <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>> > > [...] > > Some words about removed '#define stat _stat': > > 1. this define is just wrong because replaces declarations like > > struct stat stat_buff; > > by > > struct _stat stat_buff; > > and we have either compilation error (if no 'struct _stat' exists) or > > unpredictable behavior because of no guarantee that these two > > structures are compatible. > > > As a matter of fact, complete replacement of 'stat' on '_stat' was > proposed, both for function and for structure. > I assumed, that 'struct _stat' is always used as argument > for _stat().
You are wrong in 2 things: 1. You assume that if _stat() exists, then 'struct _stat' exists also. It's obviously not true on the my system (FreeBSD-5.4). And compilation break as consequence. 2. For some, unknown for me reason, you prefer non-standard and undocumented _stat(?) over standard and well documented stat(2). Sorry, may be under Windows such behavior have good reason, but why you do it on the non-windows systems also????? Why do you thing that '_stat' have the same amount of parameters, the same or compatible behavior on the _my_ system? Why do you think that this symbol points to the function at all and not, for example, some global variable or mutex? :-) Yes, in this concrete case I think that this is just an alternative entry point to the same syscall, but in general case? > At least, in tested libraries it just so. You tested on the Windows. But, windows is not an only one system on the plannet ;-) > Can you tell, where were problems with compilation? Every usage of the 'struct stat' in the xmlIO.c. Please, read above: there no 'struct _stat' at all. > The replacement was convenient, because there is no > variant of _wstat(), using 'struct stat' as argument. > > Without macro 'stat' it should to add more #ifdef / #else. Sorry, I prefer more ifdefs on the windows-related part, than compilation error or unpredictable behavior on the Unix. > > > 2. existence of the non-standard function _stat() is not a reason for > > replacing by it the standard function stat() that exists also > > (please, pay attention that this is '#else' part of the > > '#ifndef HAVE_STAT' condition). > > > If they are equivalent, why not? Who say to you that they are equivalent? Please, point me to the any standard, which have matter on Unix and say that _stat() and stat() should be equivalent. OK. I remove "have matter on Unix" restriction. Just point my to the _any_ standard, that [...] -- Andrew W. Nosenko <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> _______________________________________________ xml mailing list, project page http://xmlsoft.org/ xml@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/xml
