On Sun, 19 May 2013 10:08:39 +0200 Charles-François Natali <cf.nat...@gmail.com> wrote: > 2013/5/17 Antoine Pitrou <solip...@pitrou.net>: > > > > 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
