Implement LWG issue 2720. Replace perms::resolve_symlinks with perms::symlink_nofollow.
This changes how filesystem::permissions(p, perms) handles symlinks. Previously
symlinks were not resolved by default instead only getting resolved when
"perms::resolve_symlinks" was used. After this change symlinks are resolved
by default and perms::symlink_nofollow must be given to change this.
This issue has not yet been moved to Ready status, and I will revert if it
doesn't get moved at the current meeting. However I feel confident that it
will and it's nice to have implementations when moving issues.
llvm-svn: 273328
diff --git a/libcxx/test/std/experimental/filesystem/fs.enum/enum.perms.pass.cpp b/libcxx/test/std/experimental/filesystem/fs.enum/enum.perms.pass.cpp
index a3589eb..c0b14ba 100644
--- a/libcxx/test/std/experimental/filesystem/fs.enum/enum.perms.pass.cpp
+++ b/libcxx/test/std/experimental/filesystem/fs.enum/enum.perms.pass.cpp
@@ -63,6 +63,6 @@
E::unknown == ME(0xFFFF) &&
E::add_perms == ME(0x10000) &&
E::remove_perms == ME(0x20000) &&
- E::resolve_symlinks == ME(0x40000),
+ E::symlink_nofollow == ME(0x40000),
"Expected enumeration values do not match");
}
diff --git a/libcxx/test/std/experimental/filesystem/fs.op.funcs/fs.op.permissions/permissions.pass.cpp b/libcxx/test/std/experimental/filesystem/fs.op.funcs/fs.op.permissions/permissions.pass.cpp
index 7b3013a..b177693 100644
--- a/libcxx/test/std/experimental/filesystem/fs.op.funcs/fs.op.permissions/permissions.pass.cpp
+++ b/libcxx/test/std/experimental/filesystem/fs.op.funcs/fs.op.permissions/permissions.pass.cpp
@@ -67,9 +67,9 @@
}
{
std::error_code ec;
- fs::permissions(dne_sym, perms::resolve_symlinks, ec);
+ fs::permissions(dne_sym, fs::perms{}, ec);
TEST_REQUIRE(ec);
- TEST_CHECK(checkThrow(dne_sym, perms::resolve_symlinks, ec));
+ TEST_CHECK(checkThrow(dne_sym, fs::perms{}, ec));
}
}
@@ -82,7 +82,7 @@
const path sym = env.create_symlink(file_for_sym, "sym");
const perms AP = perms::add_perms;
const perms RP = perms::remove_perms;
- const perms RS = perms::resolve_symlinks;
+ const perms NF = perms::symlink_nofollow;
struct TestCase {
path p;
perms set_perms;
@@ -98,11 +98,15 @@
{dir, perms::owner_all, perms::owner_all},
{dir, perms::group_all | AP, perms::owner_all | perms::group_all},
{dir, perms::group_all | RP, perms::owner_all},
- // test symlink with resolve symlinks on symlink
- {sym, perms::none | RS, perms::none},
- {sym, perms::owner_all | RS, perms::owner_all},
- {sym, perms::group_all | AP | RS, perms::owner_all | perms::group_all},
- {sym, perms::group_all | RP | RS, perms::owner_all}
+ // test symlink without symlink_nofollow
+ {sym, perms::none, perms::none},
+ {sym, perms::owner_all, perms::owner_all},
+ {sym, perms::group_all | AP, perms::owner_all | perms::group_all},
+ {sym, perms::group_all | RP , perms::owner_all},
+ // test non-symlink with symlink_nofollow. The last test on file/dir
+ // will have set their permissions to perms::owner_all
+ {file, perms::group_all | AP | NF, perms::owner_all | perms::group_all},
+ {dir, perms::group_all | AP | NF, perms::owner_all | perms::group_all}
};
for (auto const& TC : cases) {
TEST_CHECK(status(TC.p).permissions() != TC.expected);
@@ -144,7 +148,7 @@
std::error_code expected_ec = std::make_error_code(std::errc::operation_not_supported);
#endif
std::error_code ec = std::make_error_code(std::errc::bad_address);
- permissions(sym, TC.set_perms, ec);
+ permissions(sym, TC.set_perms | perms::symlink_nofollow, ec);
TEST_CHECK(ec == expected_ec);
TEST_CHECK(status(file).permissions() == file_perms);
TEST_CHECK(symlink_status(sym).permissions() == expected_link_perms);