This page is a snapshot from the LWG issues list, see the Library Active Issues List for more information and the meaning of C++20 status.

### 3015. `copy_options::unspecified` underspecified

Section: 29.12.13.4 [fs.op.copy] Status: C++20 Submitter: Tim Song Opened: 2017-08-24 Last modified: 2021-02-25

Priority: 3

View all other issues in [fs.op.copy].

View all issues with C++20 status.

Discussion:

29.12.13.4 [fs.op.copy]/4.8.2 says in the copy-a-directory case `filesystem::copy` performs:

>     for (const directory_entry& x : directory_iterator(from))
>       copy(x.path(), to/x.path().filename(), options | copy_options::unspecified);

Presumably this does not actually mean that the implementation is free to set whatever `copy_option` element it wishes (`directories_only`? `recursive`? `create_hard_links`?), or `none` at all, or – since unspecified behavior corresponds to the nondeterministic aspects of the abstract machine (6.9.1 [intro.execution]/3) – a nondeterministically picked element for every iteration of the loop. That would be outright insane.

I'm fairly sure that what's intended here is to set an otherwise-unused bit in `options` so as to prevent recursion in the `options == copy_options::none` case.

[2017-11-08]

Priority set to 3 after five votes on the mailing list

Previous resolution: [SUPERSEDED]

> This wording is relative to N4687.

> 1. Edit 29.12.13.4 [fs.op.copy] p4, bullet 4.8.2 as indicated:

>    > 1. (4.7) — Otherwise, if `is_regular_file(f)`, then:

>    >    > […]

>    > 2. (4.8) — Otherwise, if

>    >    > >     is_directory(f) &&
>    >    > >     ((options & copy_options::recursive) != copy_options::none ||
>    >    > >     options == copy_options::none)

>    >    > then:

>    >    1. (4.8.1) — If `exists(t)` is `false`, then `create_directory(to, from)`.

>    >    2. (4.8.2) — Then, iterate over the files in `from`, as if by

>    >       > >     for (const directory_entry& x : directory_iterator(from))
>    >       > >       copy(x.path(), to/x.path().filename(), options | copy_options::unspecifiedin-recursive-copy);

>    >       > where `in-recursive-copy` is an exposition-only bitmask element of `copy_options` that is not one of the elements in 29.12.8.3 [fs.enum.copy.opts].

>    > 3. (4.9) — Otherwise, for the signature with argument `ec`, `ec.clear()`.

>    > 4. (4.10) — Otherwise, no effects.

[2018-1-26 issues processing telecon]

Status to 'Tentatively Ready' after striking the words 'Exposition-only' from the added text

[2018-3-17 Adopted in Jacksonville]

Proposed resolution:

This wording is relative to N4687.

1. Edit 29.12.13.4 [fs.op.copy] p4, bullet 4.8.2 as indicated:

   > 1. (4.7) — Otherwise, if `is_regular_file(f)`, then:

   >    > […]

   > 2. (4.8) — Otherwise, if

   >    > >     is_directory(f) &&
   >    > >     ((options & copy_options::recursive) != copy_options::none ||
   >    > >     options == copy_options::none)

   >    > then:

   >    1. (4.8.1) — If `exists(t)` is `false`, then `create_directory(to, from)`.

   >    2. (4.8.2) — Then, iterate over the files in `from`, as if by

   >       > >     for (const directory_entry& x : directory_iterator(from))
   >       > >       copy(x.path(), to/x.path().filename(), options | copy_options::unspecifiedin-recursive-copy);

   >       > where `in-recursive-copy` is an bitmask element of `copy_options` that is not one of the elements in 29.12.8.3 [fs.enum.copy.opts].

   > 3. (4.9) — Otherwise, for the signature with argument `ec`, `ec.clear()`.

   > 4. (4.10) — Otherwise, no effects.