Mail Archives: cygwin/2005/10/12/10:28:02
> On Oct 12 06:58, Eric Blake wrote:
> > I see the following bugs:
> >
> > $ ./foo // # should fail with EEXIST, not EROFS; no Windows call made
>
> We had this already. There's no such thing as a "correct" order of error
> messages. EROFS is as correct as EEXIST. If coreutils don't allow
> different correct error messages to be returned, than coreutils is just
> not foolproof enough. If this isn't a problem with coreutils, than the
> better.
OK, for //, you win - POSIX requires EROFS ONLY if the PARENT directory
is read only, but the parent of // is //. Fortunately, mkdir -p never
tries to do mkdir("//").
>
> > $ ./foo /proc # should fail with EEXIST, not EROFS
> > /proc: 30 Read-only file system
>
> See above.
But for /proc, you are wrong - the parent directory / is not read
only, so POSIX only allows mkdir("/proc") to fail with EEXIST
and not EROFS.
>
> > $ ./foo c: # should fail with EEXIST, not EACCES
>
> See my previous mail on this subject.
Isn't it just a matter of checking if the original filename was
a drive letter (a simple string comparison, no windows calls
at all), and only on the error path of EACCESS (so it won't
penalize the normal successful path)?
>
> > $ ./foo a/. # should fail with EEXIST, not ENOENT
> > a/.: 2 No such file or directory
>
> I get ENOENT on Linux.
When? Before or after a exists? It makes a difference (this
trace is on Solaris 8):
% ls a
ls: a: No such file or directory
% ./foo a/.
a/.: 2 No such file or directory
% ./foo a/
a/: 0 Error 0
% ./foo a/.
a/.: 17 File exists
Cygwin is blindly returning ENOENT, without first checking
whether a/ exists. ENOENT is only permitted if a doesn't
exist; otherwise it must be EEXIST.
--
Eric Blake
--
Unsubscribe info: http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple
Problem reports: http://cygwin.com/problems.html
Documentation: http://cygwin.com/docs.html
FAQ: http://cygwin.com/faq/
- Raw text -