Cygwin and crosstool! (vmlinux.lds.asm problem with 18.104.22.168 case-insensitive build patch from crosstool)
Fri Sep 2 16:26:00 GMT 2005
>From: Christopher Faylor
>Sent: 02 September 2005 05:05
> On Tue, Aug 30, 2005 at 10:59:42AM +0100, Dave Korn wrote:
>> ----Original Message----
>>> From: Christopher Faylor
>>> Sent: 27 August 2005 02:36
>>> 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~
> Can I use this one?
Royalties for my best lines are payable in quatloos, cheques should be
made out to the Lumber Cartel Beer-and-Benevolent fund! :)
> "Did you happen to notice who you're responding to?"
> If you add this code then you have to sprinkle understanding of it to
> every function which manipulates files on the disk. You'll have to
> detect when it is possible to use it and when it isn't. You'll be
> adding overhead and, unlike the horribly ugly, and terrifically slow
> (and did I mention that it reduces the number of characters available
> for filenames! Yes! It's true) code for managed mode, you'll be adding
> code almost everywhere cygwin manipulates files on disk.
I *have* taken a serious look at this; I'm aware that there are various
uses of FindFirst and a number of FileAttributes calls to be dealt with, and
just a couple of Copy/MoveFile calls. I _think_ I can make it work without
adding nightmarish overheads.
However, any further discussion at this point is entirely theoretical and
academic; wait until I've got a patch together, then we can all look at it
together and you can identify whatever you see as a problem. Or be
impressed by the cleverness of my low-overhead solutions: delete as turns
out to be appropriate at the time.
>>> 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.
> Another good point is that managed mode reduces the file name length.
> Don't forget about that. Don't *ever* forget about that.
I could always nip over to the -talk list and set the GVRS auto-nag unit
to issue a reminder every 15 minutes or so, if that's what you really want?
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 email@example.com
More information about the crossgcc