> > Especially since the "common case", as you put it, is that the open() > > returns ENOENT, file not found. _That_ case may or may not be > > expensive, but it's quite different from the usual consideration of > > whether stat() is expensive. Not least because stat() is usually > > considered in context where a file _does_ exist and various information > > about the file gets looked up to populate the stat structure.
[Ivan Zhakov] > Btw on Windows dry open() takes a lot more time than stat(). I don't why. Wait ... you're saying open() that returns 'file not found' is more expensive than a stat()? It is harder for the OS to determine that a file does not exist and thus cannot be opened, than it is to gather various fields of information about a file that _does_ exist? I hate to pick on Windows for its design, because that's so cliche ... but that sounds like a pretty poor filesystem design. -- Peter Samuelson | org-tld!p12n!peter | http://p12n.org/
