Johannes Schindelin <johannes.schinde...@gmx.de> writes:
> I also looked at the implementation of `file_exists()` and found that it
> uses `lstat()`. Peff, you introduced this (using `stat()`) in c91f0d92efb3
> (git-commit.sh: convert run_status to a C builtin, 2006-09-08), could you
> enlighten me why you chose `stat()` over `access()` (the latter seems more
> light-weight to me)? Also, Junio, you changed it to use `lstat()` in
> a50f9fc5feb0 (file_exists(): dangling symlinks do exist, 2007-11-18), do
> you think we can/should use `access()` instead?
Given that the whole point of a50f9fc5 ("file_exists(): dangling
symlinks do exist", 2007-11-18) is to make sure that we say "it
exists" for a symbolic link that does not point anywhere, and that
access(2) dereferences a symbolic link, changing it to use access(2)
would change the meaning of the file_exists() function. So I do not
think we _should_ use access(2).
I however do not know if we _can_ use access(2). It takes auditing
the current callers and see if they truly care about knowing that a
dangling symbolic link exists to determine if it is safe to do so.
If none of them does, and if we do not have an immediate plan to add
a new one that does, then we obviously can use it, but even in that
case we'd need a comment in *.h to warn about it.
