[Boost-users] [filesystem][v3] remove_all and system::error_code error?

Subject: [Boost-users] [filesystem][v3] remove_all and system::error_code error?
From: valblade (valblade_at_[hidden])
Date: 2010-10-11 13:40:56

Hi everyone,

First of all, I want to thanks boost::filesystem contributors for
their amazing work.

I have a question in the recent filesystem V3.

when using boost::uintmax_t remove_all(const path& p,
system::error_code* ec=0); like this :

----------- listing -----------------------

remove_all("C:\\test_path_to_delete");

------------- end listing ---------------

the "C:\\test_path_to_delete"  (and its descendent) is successfully
deleted (as described in documentation)

but when I use it like this :

----------- listing -----------------------

boost::system::error_code ec;
remove_all("C:\\test_path_to_delete", ec);

------------- end listing ---------------

The directory (and it descendent) aren't removed at all.

I have investigated and, I found the following :

boost::uintmax_t remove_all_aux(const path& p, fs::file_status
sym_stat, error_code* ec)
{
  boost::uintmax_t count = 1;

  if (!fs::is_symlink(sym_stat)// don't recurse symbolic links
    && fs::is_directory(sym_stat))
  {
    for (fs::directory_iterator itr(p);
          itr != end_dir_itr; ++itr)
    {
      fs::file_status tmp_sym_stat = fs::symlink_status(itr->path(), *ec);

HERE=>      if (ec != 0 && ec)
                      return count;

      count += remove_all_aux(itr->path(), tmp_sym_stat, ec);
    }
   }

  remove_file_or_directory(p, sym_stat, ec);
  return count;
}

This function is called by remove_all.

Here, ec is passed by address.

When remove_all("C:\\test_path_to_delete"); is called, &ec = 0
(default argument)
so the check if (ec != 0 && ec) will never hit.

But when called with remove_all("C:\\test_path_to_delete", ec); ec is
allocated and &ec != 0, the check if (ec != 0 && ec) is allways true,
and the function returns at the first iteration,

I'm maybe wrong, but, isn't this what you meant to do?

if (ec != 0 && *ec)
  return count;

Sorry if I have misunderstood something...

Thanks again.