Cygwin CWD vs. Win32 CWD (was Re: [ANNOUNCEMENT] Updated: vim-7.3.003-1)

Corinna Vinschen
Fri Aug 27 12:56:00 GMT 2010

On Aug 25 22:11, Christopher Faylor wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 25, 2010 at 10:45:04PM +0100, Andy Koppe wrote:
> >On 25 August 2010 22:09, Christopher Faylor wrote:
> >>>cgf, did you get the .o idea to work?
> >>
> >> It was actually a library but yes. ??I generalized the mechanism to allow
> >> -lbinmode -ltextmode, -lautomode to also finally work.
> >
> >Great! So broken Win32-using programs could be fixed with a rebuild
> >with an added build option rather than requiring source changes.
> >
> >Still got no idea though whether the ability to delete a working
> >directory is worth it. As Eric pointed out, POSIX doesn't actually
> >require it, but Linux supports it.
> Yeah, that's what I kept vacillating about.  Is it worth the extra overhead
> to allow POSIX functionality.  It's Wednesday so I'll go with yes.  I'll
> say no on the weekend.

Maybe we should just say "no" now and be done with it.

I'd create a patch to use SetCurrentDirectoryW(real_dir) in the first
place, and only use SetCurrentDirectoryW(\\?\PIPE) for directories which
are invalid as Win32 CWDs (virtual, too long, restricted perms).  I'd
also remove the CW_SYNC_WINCWD stuff and its documentation.

I think the most important advantage is that we're back on safe ground
again.  If we ever find a way to revert to the <=1.7.5 behaviour in a
safe manner, we can re-evaluate.

Is that ok?


Corinna Vinschen                  Please, send mails regarding Cygwin to
Cygwin Project Co-Leader          cygwin AT cygwin DOT com
Red Hat

More information about the Cygwin-developers mailing list