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.

### 2937. Is `equivalent("existing_thing", "not_existing_thing")` an error?

Section: 29.12.13.13 [fs.op.equivalent] Status: C++20 Submitter: Billy Robert O'Neal III Opened: 2017-02-27 Last modified: 2021-02-25

Priority: 0

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

View all issues with C++20 status.

Discussion:

See discussion on the LWG mailing list with subject "Is equivalent("existing_thing", "not_existing_thing") an error?", abreviated below:

Billy O'Neal:

> The existing "an error is reported" effects say that an error is reported for `!exists(p1) && !exists(p2)`, but I'm not sure that treating `equivalent("existing_thing", "not_existing_thing")` as "`false`, no error" makes any more sense than for `equivalent("not_existing_thing", "not_existing_thing")`.

> It's also unfortunate that the current spec requires reporting an error for `is_other(p1) && is_other(p2)` — there's no reason that you can't give a sane answer for paths to NT pipes. (Do POSIX FIFOs give garbage answers here?)

Davis Herring:

> I'm fine with an error if either path does not exist. See also Late 29: I would much prefer

> >     file_identity identity(const path&, bool resolve = true);

> which would of course produce an error if the path did not exist (or, with the default `resolve`, was a broken symlink).

> See Late 30 and 32 (31 has been resolved). FIFOs pose no trouble: you can even `fstat(2)` on the naked file descriptors produced by `pipe(2)`. (That said, I observe the strange inconsistency that Linux but not macOS gives both ends of a pipe the same `st_ino`.)

> POSIX has no reason that I know of to treat any file type specially for `equivalent()`.

Billy O'Neal:

> I think such a `file_identity` feature would be useful but we can always add it in addition to `equivalent` post-C++17.

Beman Dawes:

> Looks good to me. Maybe submit this as an issue right away in the hopes it can go in C++17?

[2017-03-04, Kona]

Set priority to 0; Tentatively Ready

Proposed resolution:

This wording is relative to N4640.

1. Make the following edits to 29.12.13.13 [fs.op.equivalent]:

   >     bool equivalent(const path& p1, const path& p2);
   >     bool equivalent(const path& p1, const path& p2, error_code& ec) noexcept;

   > > -1- Let `s1` and `s2` be `file_status`s determined as if by `status(p1)` and `status(p2)`, respectively.

   > > -2- Effects: Determines `s1` and `s2`. If `(!exists(s1) && !exists(s2)) || (is_other(s1) && is_other(s2))` an error is reported (27.10.7).

   > > -3- Returns: `true`, if `s1 == s2` and `p1` and `p2` resolve to the same file system entity, else `false`. The signature with argument `ec` returns `false` if an error occurs.

   > > -4- Two paths are considered to resolve to the same file system entity if two candidate entities reside on the same device at the same location. [Note: On POSIX platforms, t This is determined as if by the values of the POSIX `stat` structure, obtained as if by `stat()` for the two paths, having equal `st_dev` values and equal `st_ino` values. — end note]

   > > -?- Remarks: `!exists(p1) || !exists(p2)` is an error.

   > > -5- Throws: As specified in 27.10.7.