https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113246
--- Comment #5 from Davide Pesavento <davidepesa at gmail dot com> ---
(In reply to Jonathan Wakely from comment #2)
> > If there are no leading elements of p that exist, should canonical() be
> > called with an empty path? or should it not be called at all?
>
> It makes no sense for weakly_canonical to ever call canonical with an empty
> path, since that would always report an error (i.e. throw or set ec and
> return an empty path). That would make it completely useless for paths with
> no prefix that already exists. So if there are no leading elements of p that
> exist, then obviously canonical should not be called. The alternative makes
> no sense.
>
> So the behaviour of weakly_canonical seems correct to me. If any leading
> elements exist, then canonical is called on them, which returns an absolute
> path, and then the non-existing elements are appended to that. If there are
> no existing elements, then you get a relative path.
Thanks. Not the answer I was hoping for(*) but I guess it does make sense
logically.
(*) because it means that weakly_canonical("foo") and weakly_canonical("./foo")
give different results. I guess weakly_canonical(absolute(whatever)) is what I
need (in most cases).
