This is the mail archive of the crossgcc@sourceware.org mailing list for the crossgcc project.
See the CrossGCC FAQ for lots more information.
Index Nav: | [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index] | |
---|---|---|
Message Nav: | [Date Prev] [Date Next] | [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] |
Other format: | [Raw text] |
----Original Message---- >From: Christopher Faylor >Sent: 27 August 2005 02:36 > On Fri, Aug 26, 2005 at 05:45:08PM -0700, Dan Kegel wrote: >> Dave Korn wrote: >>> 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. > > Heh. Zing. It is, in fact, a provably true statement; see my other reply! > As has been shown -- using the posix semantics file flag is not a new > idea. We're not apt to accept a patch since we're slowly headed towards > using nt-specific api for handling files on NT/2000/XP and they can deal > with mixed case. Well, some of the bits of code that I'll have to implement (e.g case-sensitive FindFirstFile) may become more generally useful in that case. > And, of course using this flag is going to result in some extra overhead > as well, since cygwin would have to recognize it and propgate it around > for every function which manipulates files. Since I wouldn't have > invented the use of the flag, I'd probably start complaining about that. > :-) How much extra overhead does it take to carry around a previously unused bit in the mountflags word? :-) Your real objection is weakened if you tie it to unproven and possibly false statements! :-P~ > I would definitely complain about creating files that can't be deleted > by normal windows utilities, as has also been mentioned. We already > suffered a bout of that when we switched to using NtCreateFile a while > ago and accidentally allowed the creation of "special" files like "nul" > and "com1" on NTFS disks. It surely confused users. That would be > ameliorated by making it a specific mount option but I'm sure we'd > still get complaints. We could always make it an undocumented secret option! > Oh, and maybe I missed this but, while I'm at it, someone should also > mention that they don't like managed mode because it's easier to run > into Windows file name length limit. That has been mentioned enough > that I've asked to make it a FAQ. Ooh, good point. cheers, DaveK -- Can't think of a witty .sigline today.... ------ Want more information? See the CrossGCC FAQ, http://www.objsw.com/CrossGCC/ Want to unsubscribe? Send a note to crossgcc-unsubscribe@sources.redhat.com
Index Nav: | [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index] | |
---|---|---|
Message Nav: | [Date Prev] [Date Next] | [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] |