This is the mail archive of the
mailing list for the Cygwin project.
Re: Sparse file criteria malfunction - binutils produces sparse .exe & .dll files
Corinna Vinschen wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 05, 2003 at 10:48:39AM -0500, Gary R. Van Sickle wrote:
>> Wait, no, *100%* of Cygwin users on NTFS are negatively
> I'm also on NTFS and I don't suffer, especially after the latest change.
>> Yes, now it'll be only if you write past the end of the file. Which
>> binutils does. Well, that's something I guess.
> Why does everybody fail to evidence?
> I'm having a lot of projects on my XP/NTFS system since I'm a developer
> developing for Cygwin. I'm running the latest DLL from CVS.
> Guess what?
> I didn't see any proof that ld or strip create sparse files. All *.a, *.o
> and *.exe files take as much blocks as to be expected by non-sparse files.
I threw together a horrible C program to ask Windows whether a file was
sparse. .exe and .dll files made with a 1.5.0 Cygwin are. I haven't posted
the test program, because it is too messy.
>> Let the not-so-passive-aggressive semi-namecalling begin (I suggest
>> Adjutant General Complainer JG"). But tell me where I'm wrong first.
> You're argumenting without proof.
I give proof that dll/exe files are being created sparse above.
Do you mean proof that sparseness of .exe files is harmful?
Data has already been posted by me and others showing that sparse files
consume excess disc space.
That alone is enough for me to not want files unnecessarily sparse.
(There is also the plausible conjecture that NTFS must do more work reading
a sparse file - I have no test data, but since sparseness gains me nothing,
and might lose me something, I dont like it._
So, the point is, for the majority of users, sparseness gains nothing, and
can have undesirable effects.
Therefore, I really think it should be off by default.
Unsubscribe info: http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple
Problem reports: http://cygwin.com/problems.html