This is the mail archive of the
cygwin-developers@cygwin.com
mailing list for the Cygwin project.
Re: biggest... check-in... ever...
On Tue, Sep 23, 2003 at 11:47:30AM +0200, Corinna Vinschen wrote:
>On Tue, Sep 23, 2003 at 12:08:58AM -0400, Christopher Faylor wrote:
>> Tomorrow, I will check in my massive rewrite of fhandler stuff to deal
>> with devices in a different way. It will eventually allow on-disk
>> device files. It sort of does now but managed mode clobbered this a
>> little.
>
>after a long pause I tried the branch again.
>
>There's still the naming of the harddisk devices which is different
>from what they are named before. They should be named /dev/sd..,
>not /dev/hd..
I haven't forgotten about this. It's on my todo. It falls under the
"some things will be broken".
>Makefile.in is missing a rule to create devices.cc from devices.gperf.
>I tried `gperf -t -D --language=C++ devices.gperf > devices.cc' and the
>same without language option but both calls result in a bunch of error
>messages. How do I call it correctly?
I'll add a rule. I don't know how it disappeared.
>The last point is, I'm not sure a hash is appropriate here. What's
>the gain? The fixed devices are always prepended by "/dev/", so this
>part has no meaning in the hash at all. The remainder of the name is
>mostly 3 chars in length. Wouldn't a binary array search be better
>for this? It would drop the need to use gperf, btw.
If you can find some kind of binary tree compiler similar to gperf,
I'll certainly consider it.
cgf