From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Johannes Sixt Subject: Re: [PATCH] Add a new lstat implementation based on Win32 API, and make stat use that implementation too. Date: Sun, 2 Sep 2007 21:07:08 +0200 Message-ID: <200709022107.08804.johannes.sixt@telecom.at> References: <46DACD93.9000509@trolltech.com> <200709022016.54262.johannes.sixt@telecom.at> <46DB0478.8050402@trolltech.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-15" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: Marius Storm-Olsen , Johannes Schindelin To: git@vger.kernel.org X-From: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Sun Sep 02 21:07:21 2007 Return-path: Envelope-to: gcvg-git@gmane.org Received: from vger.kernel.org ([209.132.176.167]) by lo.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.50) id 1IRumz-0001YV-HD for gcvg-git@gmane.org; Sun, 02 Sep 2007 21:07:17 +0200 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1750998AbXIBTHM (ORCPT ); Sun, 2 Sep 2007 15:07:12 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1751345AbXIBTHM (ORCPT ); Sun, 2 Sep 2007 15:07:12 -0400 Received: from smtp4.srv.eunet.at ([193.154.160.226]:53560 "EHLO smtp4.srv.eunet.at" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1750998AbXIBTHL (ORCPT ); Sun, 2 Sep 2007 15:07:11 -0400 Received: from dx.sixt.local (at00d01-adsl-194-118-045-019.nextranet.at [194.118.45.19]) by smtp4.srv.eunet.at (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4B2F6977A0; Sun, 2 Sep 2007 21:07:09 +0200 (CEST) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by dx.sixt.local (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0F45E57CDC; Sun, 2 Sep 2007 21:07:09 +0200 (CEST) User-Agent: KMail/1.9.3 In-Reply-To: <46DB0478.8050402@trolltech.com> Content-Disposition: inline Sender: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org Archived-At: On Sunday 02 September 2007 20:44, Marius Storm-Olsen wrote: > Johannes Sixt wrote: > > I'm slightly negative about this. For a native Windows project the > > executable bit does not matter, and for a cross-platform project this > > check is not sufficient, but can even become annoying (think of a file > > named 'www.google.com'). So we can just as well spare the few cycles. > > Ok, that's fine by me. It was only added for completeness, and with no > benefits I'd say we drop it too. I'll amend the patch accordingly. > >> return 0; > >> + } > >> + errno = ENOENT; > > > > Of course we need a bit more detailed error conditions, most importantly > > EACCES should be distinguished. > > Right, you want to do that in a second commit? Yes, please. Please don't forget to take care of the trailing-slash annoyance. -- Hannes