This is the mail archive of the
mailing list for the GDB project.
Re: Unreliable BFD caching heuristic
- From: Tom Tromey <tromey at redhat dot com>
- To: Eli Zaretskii <eliz at gnu dot org>
- Cc: lgustavo at codesourcery dot com, petr dot hluzin at gmail dot com, gdb at sourceware dot org, macro at codesourcery dot com
- Date: Wed, 04 Dec 2013 08:53:46 -0700
- 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> <83a9gh46qz dot fsf at gnu dot org>
>>>>> "Eli" == Eli Zaretskii <firstname.lastname@example.org> writes:
Luis> Thanks, but i don't think we would like to have windows-specific calls
Luis> in such a generic portion of code.
Eli> I don't understand: if you want to use inode numbers on Posix systems,
Eli> which requires a Unix-specific call, then why not use
Eli> GetFileInformationByHandle, which gives the Windows equivalent of the
Eli> inode? IOW, if you can have _real_ inodes on Windows, why risk the
Eli> fake ones?
FWIW it seems fine to me as well.
I'm sure one of our several existing portability mechanisms is suitable
for this task.