RE: Cygwin and crosstool! (vmlinux.lds.asm problem with 2.6.12.5 case-insensitive build patch from crosstool)

["Dave Korn" <dave dot korn at artimi dot com>]

----Original Message----
>From: Christopher Faylor
>Sent: 27 August 2005 02:36

> On Fri, Aug 26, 2005 at 05:45:08PM -0700, Dan Kegel wrote:
>> Dave Korn wrote:
>>> 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.
> 
> Heh.  Zing.

  It is, in fact, a provably true statement; see my other reply!

> As has been shown -- using the posix semantics file flag is not a new
> idea.  We're not apt to accept a patch since we're slowly headed towards
> using nt-specific api for handling files on NT/2000/XP and they can deal
> with mixed case.

  Well, some of the bits of code that I'll have to implement (e.g
case-sensitive FindFirstFile) may become more generally useful in that case.
 
> 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~
 
> I would definitely complain about creating files that can't be deleted
> by normal windows utilities, as has also been mentioned.  We already
> suffered a bout of that when we switched to using NtCreateFile a while
> ago and accidentally allowed the creation of "special" files like "nul"
> and "com1" on NTFS disks.  It surely confused users.  That would be
> ameliorated by making it a specific mount option but I'm sure we'd
> still get complaints.

  We could always make it an undocumented secret option!
 
> 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.

    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