Re: [Patch] Rebase: new switch --ephemeral

[Christopher Faylor <cgf-use-the-mailinglist-please at cygwin dot com>]

On Mon, Jul 02, 2012 at 11:32:03AM +0200, Corinna Vinschen wrote:
>On Jun 30 06:45, Achim Gratz wrote:
>> On Wednesday 20 June 2012, 11:33:17, Corinna Vinschen wrote:
>> > If you really want -E to be an exclusive option, then what I'm missing
>> > is the enforcement on the command line.
>> 
>> Here's a reworked patch (against rebase-4.2.0-1) that enforces mutual 
>> exclusivity between -T and -E; extra files given on the command line are 
>> processed with the list and the description has been altered to hopefully be 
>> more clear in that respect.  This change also forces that only a single such 
>> option is present on the command line instead of silently using the last one 
>> only.
>> 
>> Typical use of this new option would be:
>> 
>> cygport $p compile
>> find $p -name \*.dll -o -name \*.so | rebase -sE -
>> cygport $p test
>> 
>> Recording the ephemeral files in the database properly would likely require 
>> a new database format and more support functions, so I'm skipping that for 
>> now, I also don't see any need for that at the moment.
>
>You could also just mark them internally in the bitfield (which you
>kinda already do) and then tweak the merge function to sort the
>ephemeral ones independent of the persistent DLLs so the persistent DLLs
>are always compacted from the start base address downwards with
>the ephemeral ones following.  Then you just store the persistent ones.
>
>Jason, it's your call now.  You didn't chime in at all so far.  I'm not
>sure this is really necessary functionality but it doesn't hurt either
>and it appears to help in some scenarios.

I'm not paying close attention but I have to say that I really don't like
the name "ephemeral" for a switch.  Couldn't it be named more precisely
to indicate what it is doing like --no-update-db or something like that?

cgf