[libcxx-commits] [PATCH] D92769: [libc++] [P1164] [C++20] Make fs::create_directory() error if there is already a non-directory.

[Marek Kurdej via Phabricator via libcxx-commits]

curdeius marked 3 inline comments as done.
curdeius added a comment.

OK. I'll wait for D92794 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D92794> to rebase and update.



================
Comment at: libcxx/docs/Cxx2aStatusIssuesStatus.csv:18
 "`2870 <https://wg21.link/LWG2870>`__","Default value of parameter theta of polar should be dependent","Albuquerque","|Complete|",""
-"`2935 <https://wg21.link/LWG2935>`__","What should create_directories do when p already exists but is not a directory?","Albuquerque","",""
+"`2935 <https://wg21.link/LWG2935>`__","What should create_directories do when p already exists but is not a directory?","Albuquerque","|Complete|","12.0"
 "`2941 <https://wg21.link/LWG2941>`__","[thread.req.timing] wording should apply to both member and namespace-level functions","Albuquerque","|Nothing To Do|",""
----------------
ldionne wrote:
> Isn't that "Nothing to do"?
Good catch. Updated accordingly.


================
Comment at: libcxx/docs/Cxx2aStatusIssuesStatus.csv:86
 "`3076 <https://wg21.link/LWG3076>`__","basic_string CTAD ambiguity","Rapperswil","|Complete|",""
-"`3079 <https://wg21.link/LWG3079>`__","LWG 2935 forgot to fix the existing_p overloads of create_directory","Rapperswil","",""
+"`3079 <https://wg21.link/LWG3079>`__","LWG 2935 forgot to fix the existing_p overloads of create_directory","Rapperswil","|Complete|","12.0"
 "`3080 <https://wg21.link/LWG3080>`__","Floating point from_chars pattern specification breaks round-tripping","Rapperswil","",""
----------------
ldionne wrote:
> Same here -- isn't that "Nothing to do"?
Ditto.


================
Comment at: libcxx/src/filesystem/operations.cpp:858
+    if (!is_directory(st)) {
+      err.report(mec); // Or err.report(errc::not_a_directory); ?
+    }
----------------
ldionne wrote:
> curdeius wrote:
> > Question to reviewers, what should we return, `error_code` corresponding to `errno` (`mec`) or another error code, e.g `not_a_directory`?
> I believe an error code corresponding to `errno` is the most sensible thing, since that's effectively surfacing the actual failure reported by `mkdir` to the user, which is what we want IMO. Also, the Standard gives us leeway here, it only seems to say that we need to report an error -- so either way appears to be conforming.
Ok. Thanks.


Repository:
  rG LLVM Github Monorepo

CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION
  https://reviews.llvm.org/D92769/new/

https://reviews.llvm.org/D92769