Okie, I'll revert the virtual_link completely then right now. Ilia
On November 4, 2002 04:36 am, Andi Gutmans wrote: > At 02:53 PM 11/4/2002 -0500, Ilia A. wrote: > >On November 4, 2002 03:43 am, Andi Gutmans wrote: > > > At 02:41 PM 11/4/2002 -0500, Ilia A. wrote: > > > >On November 4, 2002 03:36 am, you wrote: > > > > > I'll check it out tomorrow. Your code is problematic in any case as > > > > > you're returning a pointer to the stack which is a no-no in C. > > > > > I'll see if there's a way to do what you need without adding this > > > > > virtual_link function. Can you revert it in the meantime? > > > > > > > >Quite correct, not sure why I missed that and the compiler did not > > > > catch that. > > > >I'll revert the patch momentarily. > > > > > > OK thanks. Will an extra argument to file_ex() telling it not to run > > > realpath() solve your problem? We need realpath() everywhere else but I > > > think it'll be OK for unlink() only. > > > >Actually we need it several other places, originally I've added this code > > due to a bug in symlink/link implementation. The following functions > > would need not to resolve symlinks: > >virtual_rename(), virtual_lstat(), virtual_rmdir(), virtual_unlink(), > >virtual_chown(). > > > >Possibly others. > > > >The extra argument for file_ex would solve the problem, however given the > >fact > >this may be a common function, it may be a good idea to keep it seperate. > > I think it's best to add this argument to file_ex because the code exists > already. > > Andi -- PHP CVS Mailing List (http://www.php.net/) To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
