<html><body style="word-wrap: break-word; -webkit-nbsp-mode: space; -webkit-line-break: after-white-space; "><br>On Mar 2, 2011, at 7:54 AM, Liam Staskawicz wrote:<br><br><blockquote type="cite">ping.<br><br>Is anybody available to review and commit if OK? Thanks!<br><br>Liam<br>Forwarded message:<br><br><blockquote type="cite" style="border-left-style:solid;border-width:1px;margin-left:0px;padding-left:10px;">From: Liam Staskawicz <<a href="mailto:lstask@gmail.com">lstask@gmail.com</a>><br>To: <a href="mailto:llvm-commits@cs.uiuc.edu">llvm-commits@cs.uiuc.edu</a><br>Date: Monday, February 28, 2011 10:39:43 AM<br>Subject: [PATCH] sys::fs::can_read() and sys::fs::can_write() for Unix<br><br>Hi - the attached patch provides implementations and tests for sys::fs::can_read() and sys::fs::can_write() for Unix. These were adapted from the previous implementations in lib/Support/Unix/Path.inc. can_execute() could be implemented quite similarly, but I wasn't sure where the best place to add a test for it would be, so left it out for now.</blockquote></blockquote><br><div>I'm surprised that anything in LLVM and clang is actually using canWrite().</div><div>It appears that there is one use, in clang, and that one looks pretty</div><div>suspicious. Perhaps it can be removed altogether instead of ported to PathV2?</div><div><br></div><div>Dan</div><div><br></div></body></html>