This is the mail archive of the
gdb@sourceware.org
mailing list for the GDB project.
Re: Unreliable BFD caching heuristic
- From: Eli Zaretskii <eliz at gnu dot org>
- To: lgustavo at codesourcery dot com
- Cc: petr dot hluzin at gmail dot com, tromey at redhat dot com, gdb at sourceware dot org, macro at codesourcery dot com
- Date: Wed, 04 Dec 2013 05:47:32 +0200
- Subject: Re: Unreliable BFD caching heuristic
- Authentication-results: sourceware.org; auth=none
- References: <528E454F dot 6060003 at codesourcery dot com> <87a9gjw97b dot fsf at fleche dot redhat dot com> <529DF865 dot 2070104 at codesourcery dot com> <CAC=yr6DRDsRLStnDNZW_2=0vOQY-oJHd55_nLUeb8Qetxo=yXw at mail dot gmail dot com> <529E709F dot 6050008 at codesourcery dot com>
- Reply-to: Eli Zaretskii <eliz at gnu dot org>
> Date: Tue, 03 Dec 2013 22:00:31 -0200
> From: Luis Machado <lgustavo@codesourcery.com>
> CC: Tom Tromey <tromey@redhat.com>, gdb <gdb@sourceware.org>, "Maciej W. Rozycki" <macro@codesourcery.com>
>
> On 12/03/2013 09:33 PM, Petr HluzÃn wrote:
> >
> > On 3 December 2013 16:27, Luis Machado <lgustavo@codesourcery.com
> > <mailto:lgustavo@codesourcery.com>> wrote:
> > > I did an experiment with using the inode number in the cache check.
> > It seems
> > > to work for the hosts that support that information. On Windows i
> > think we
> > > fake inode numbers based on the file name and timestamp, so it could be a
> > > simpler solution.
> > >
> > > Luis
> >
> > On Windows you can use GetFileInformationByHandle() function, see
> > http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/aa364952.aspx
>
> Thanks, but i don't think we would like to have windows-specific calls
> in such a generic portion of code.
I don't understand: if you want to use inode numbers on Posix systems,
which requires a Unix-specific call, then why not use
GetFileInformationByHandle, which gives the Windows equivalent of the
inode? IOW, if you can have _real_ inodes on Windows, why risk the
fake ones?