Re: Cygwin and crosstool! (vmlinux.lds.asm problem with 2.6.12.5case-insensitive build patch from crosstool)

[Dan Kegel <dank at kegel dot com>]

Dave Korn wrote:
> > Corinna objects to it, though; she said on 22 Jul 2004 22:46:44 in
> > a message in thread "Re: Slight problem with case sensitivity on managed
> > mounts with C VS-1.1" archived at
> > http://www.newsarch.com/archive/mailinglist/cygwin/msg09026.html :
>
>
>   I can't get that address to resolve!

Search for the content in google; it's still in the cache.

> > > The problem in using FILE_FLAG_POSIX_SEMANTICS is this: Any other
> > > application which doesn't use that flag might get seriously confused
> > > by having two files which only differ in case. 
> >
> > But maybe she'd be ok with it as an extra mount flag.
>
>   I hope so; that way it's strictly isolated from anyone who doesn't want it
> in use.  Making it a property of a mountpoint (rather than e.g. a CYGWIN
> environment variable option) should make it keep itself to self-contained
> dir subtrees, rather than allowing chaotically-named files to scatter across
> the whole fs.

Not the whole fs; just the part mounted as 'managed'.  And
the mangled names are only visible if you don't look at
them through cygwin, of course.

> > But before you do: what *is* the overhead of managed mode mounts?
>
>   No idea, but I'm sufficiently off-put by those mangled names that I don't
> like it!

Aha.  Then please don't argue that there is any overhead.
Your real objection, the mangled names, is weakened if you
tie it to unproven and possibly false statements.
- Dan

--
Trying to get a job as a c++ developer?  See http://kegel.com/academy/getting-hired.html


------
Want more information?  See the CrossGCC FAQ, http://www.objsw.com/CrossGCC/
Want to unsubscribe? Send a note to crossgcc-unsubscribe@sources.redhat.com