Jonathan Wakely <redi at gcc dot> changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
             Status|WAITING                     |NEW

--- Comment #5 from Jonathan Wakely <redi at gcc dot> ---
(In reply to Steffen Schuemann from comment #3)
> gcc version 8.0.1 20180414 (experimental) [trunk revision 259383] (Ubuntu
> 8-20180414-1ubuntu2) 

Why are you using a pre-release snapshot from 4 months ago when the 8.1 and 8.2
releases have been made since then?

> I see, that LWG defect 2935 addresses this question. But first, my
> understanding is a defect in WP status is still not part of the standard, so
> it might become part of some C++20 or some TC, but it currently doesn't seem
> to be part of C++17 (selected by -std=c++17). I might be wrong with that.

It's a defect in C++17. We implement the fixes, not implement a standard that
is known to be defective. Why would you want a pedantic adherence to a
defective standard? Do you also want compiler bugs to go unfixed, because they
were present in past releases? :-)

Anyway, the manual says what -std=c++17 means:

"The 2017 ISO C++ standard plus amendments."

> And second, I still I don't really see how this is expected to be used by
> the developers usinf std::fs. Without that postcondition you have to do a
> check for the directory before using that it, so the "spared" call was
> simply moved to the user code. Not testing could lead to harder to track
> down bugs later on in a different domain of the software. 

Yes, I agree. I don't think pushing the is_directory check onto users is
helpful, but that's what the Defect Report resolution says. I was discussing it
recently with the developer of libc++'s std::filesystem implementation and I
think we both fail to meet the spec for create_directory (as you noted in
comment 4). I'm not sure what libc++ does for create_directories.

I haven't changed create_directory, because I like its current behaviour. I
haven't changed create_directories because it was accidentally already doing
what 2935 wants, and intentionally changing to disagree with the spec seems
wrong. i.e. inertia has won.

> And third, as testing for existence and type can be done with one call,

That's true for my implementation of create_directories, but not for
create_directory, where you don't need to test for existence. You call mkdir
and if it returns EEXIST you know it already exists. To see if it's a directory
requires another system call (which I currently do).

I've now asked the standard committee to reconsider whether we made the right
call on 2935.

I'll confirm this, because whatever happens create_directory and
create_directories should be consistent, so I'll need to change one of them.

Reply via email to