How to perform boost::filesystem copy_file with overwrite?

There's a third enum argument to copy_file boost::filesystem::copy_option::overwrite_if_exists copy_file(source_path,destination_path,copy_option::overwrite_if_exists).

There's a third enum argument to copy_file, boost::filesystem::copy_option::overwrite_if_exists copy_file(source_path,destination_path,copy_option::overwrite_if_exists).

Thanks anno. I wasn't aware of this. It seems that this option was added sometime between version 1.35 that I was using when I asked the question, and version 1.41 that I'm using now.

I can't find the change in the change history of the library. But anyway, problem solved. I'm not sure if I should now accept your answer, maybe I'll ask on meta.

– Dani van der Meer Apr 27 '10 at 6:21 Beware: there seems to be an issue with this third argument in the POSIX implementation. See answer by Vitaly. – Dani van der Meer Dec 5 '10 at 8:09.

Test if the destination file exists first and if it does then remove it : if (exists (to_fp)) remove (to_fp); copy_file (from_fp, to_fp); Or if you're worried about the file appearing between the test and the copy then you could write to a temporary file and then rename it to the destination file.

Yes this is possible. But what if the copy operation fails? You already deleted the target.It doesn't have the same transaction-like semantics as CopyFile.

– Dani van der Meer May 6 '09 at 13:23 Does the rename alternative not give you this? Anyway from looking at the boost source the API doesn't allow you to optionally overwrite the file. You could suggest this to them as an improvement.

In the meantime you could take your own copy of the boost copy_file function and modify it to take an extra "overwrite" bool parameter. – jon h. May 6 '09 at 13:58 Well, I guess the rename logic will work, but I was hoping there was something in the library that solves this, and that I won't have to solve it myself :).

I will try to suggest it as an improvement. I think this is a logical and helpful feature. Anyway, thanks for your help.

I will probably use CopyFile for now. – Dani van der Meer May 6 '09 at 15:37 Dani, the purpose to use boost is to write portable code, why to being so lazy you jeopardize the main reason to use boost? – Gaetano Mendola May 6 '09 at 22:37 Portability is definitely an important reason for using Boost, but not necessarily the main reason.

I would argue that the main reason for using a library like boost, but also the Windows API, is not having to implement basic functionality yourself (and test, debug, etc. ). In this case these two reasons conflict, and I have to make the right trade-off. What is the right trad-off is of course a matter of opinion :).

– Dani van der Meer May 6 '09 at 11:25.

Beware of boost::copy_file with copy_option::overwrite_if_exists! If the destination file exists and it is smaller than the source, the function will only overwrite the first size(from_file) bytes in the target file. At least for me this was a caveat since I presumed copy_option::overwrite_if_exists affects files and not content.

I tried to reproduce on my platform (Windows), but couldn't. The overwrite does affect the complete file, regardless of size. What platform did you test on?

– Dani van der Meer Nov 18 '10 at 16:53 IFAIK copy_option::overwrite_if_exists only exists on *nix (at least in boost-1.44 for filesystem v2). But you can easily see it in the the source code, the file is opened for writing with O_WRONLY but without O_TRUNC flag set. – Vitaly P Nov 18 '10 at 21:21 I am using boost 1.41.

Copy_option::overwrite_if_exists exists also for Windows. Copy_file calls win32 API CopyFile (the A or W version) with bFailIfExists according to the option you pass to boost::copy_file. So possibly the behavior for Windows and POSIX is different?

– Dani van der Meer 1.440 at 6:12 Yes it is different. I just submitted the bug to boost. See ISSUE #4930 (svn.boost.Org/trac/boost/ticket/4930) – Vitaly P 1.440 at 17:05 According to boost this issue has been just fixed in rev.

67067 (so I expect it will be included in the upcoming boost-1.46) – Vitaly P 1.440 at 21:09.

Apparently there's no direct API to do this. Or is it better to simply use the Windows API? My current target platform is Windows, but I prefer to use STL and boost where possible to keep my code platform independent.

From the documentation: A proposal, N1975, to include Boost. Filesystem in Technical Report 2 has been accepted by the C++ Standards Committee. The Boost.

Filesystem library will stay in alignment with the TR2 Filesystem proposal as it works its way through the TR2 process. Note, however, that namespaces and header granularity differs between Boost. Filesystem and the TR2 proposal.

Which strongly suggests that sticking with boost::filesystem is a good idea.

I cant really gove you an answer,but what I can give you is a way to a solution, that is you have to find the anglde that you relate to or peaks your interest. A good paper is one that people get drawn into because it reaches them ln some way.As for me WW11 to me, I think of the holocaust and the effect it had on the survivors, their families and those who stood by and did nothing until it was too late.