From: Andrey Semashev (andrey.semashev_at_[hidden])
Date: 2021-06-04 12:04:56
On 6/4/21 2:03 PM, Niall Douglas via Boost wrote:
> On 04/06/2021 10:12, Andrey Semashev via Boost wrote:
>> My stance on this is that Boost.Filesystem must be built on a system
>> with kernel headers matching or older than the systems that will run the
>> binary. This matches the same requirements for Windows. I don't support
>> configs with headers newer than runtime kernel.
> It's trivially easy to do a runtime check for statx kernel support and
> fall back on older syscalls if needed.
> This is LLFIO doing so, and it works on Linux kernel 2.6:
The code you pointed to is not what I would call trivial. There are
quite a few places where statx is used in Boost.Filesystem, in some
places exclusively (i.e. there is no fallback). I could add a runtime
check, but I definitely don't want that check to happen on every call.
This means the result must be stored globally in a thread-safe manner.
Then there are other syscalls, on Linux and other systems, should I also
add runtime checks for those? All that to support what I consider
improperly configured systems. It just doesn't look like a worthwhile
effort while I have other things to do, including in Boost.Filesystem too.
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk