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: Dan Kegel >Sent: 27 August 2005 01:45 > 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. Ah, it's also at the canonical location of http://sources.redhat.com/ml/cygwin/2004-07/msg00909.html <koff> Did you notice who that post was a reply to? >>> 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. Nonono; I was referring to the only-discriminable-by-case files that my new option would create; if it was a CYGWIN environment variable flag that enabled _POSIX_ flag globally, these troublesome files could be created arbitrarily all over the fs, where it would only be a matter of time until they ran up against case-insensitive win32 apps with bad consequences; hence my reasoning to make it a mount mode and, just like with mangaged mode, have all the files with wierd names in one subtree. >>> 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. Oh come on! The code paths for managed mode are exactly the same as the code paths for non-managed mode, with the addition of extra function calls such as fnunmunge and special_introducer and so on, so I believe my statement is in fact trivially demonstrable by inspection. Read the source! My objection is that there is _an_ overhead *and* it looks ugly. I'm not proposing to remove or replace managed mode, so I don't think I need to comprehensively demonstrate the size of the overhead. :) 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] |