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: 02 September 2005 05:05 > On Tue, Aug 30, 2005 at 10:59:42AM +0100, Dave Korn wrote: >> ----Original Message---- >>> From: Christopher Faylor >>> Sent: 27 August 2005 02:36 >>> 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~ > > Can I use this one? Royalties for my best lines are payable in quatloos, cheques should be made out to the Lumber Cartel Beer-and-Benevolent fund! :) > "Did you happen to notice who you're responding to?" > > If you add this code then you have to sprinkle understanding of it to > every function which manipulates files on the disk. You'll have to > detect when it is possible to use it and when it isn't. You'll be > adding overhead and, unlike the horribly ugly, and terrifically slow > (and did I mention that it reduces the number of characters available > for filenames! Yes! It's true) code for managed mode, you'll be adding > code almost everywhere cygwin manipulates files on disk. I *have* taken a serious look at this; I'm aware that there are various uses of FindFirst and a number of FileAttributes calls to be dealt with, and just a couple of Copy/MoveFile calls. I _think_ I can make it work without adding nightmarish overheads. However, any further discussion at this point is entirely theoretical and academic; wait until I've got a patch together, then we can all look at it together and you can identify whatever you see as a problem. Or be impressed by the cleverness of my low-overhead solutions: delete as turns out to be appropriate at the time. >>> 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. > > Another good point is that managed mode reduces the file name length. > Don't forget about that. Don't *ever* forget about that. I could always nip over to the -talk list and set the GVRS auto-nag unit to issue a reminder every 15 minutes or so, if that's what you really want? :-) 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] |