X-Recipient:	archive-cygwin AT delorie DOT com
DomainKey-Signature:	a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=sourceware.org; h=list-id
	:list-unsubscribe:list-subscribe:list-archive:list-post
	:list-help:sender:date:from:to:subject:message-id:reply-to
	:references:mime-version:content-type:in-reply-to; q=dns; s=
	default; b=SbmM2BJl52SAckwQuTEGtGrUttOK5fBxQqyv1x32mEbRHZ9HcG+x2
	IqB8Emkeargu1td5gCDrHN/58yvb++JnImdRgvTYgnV5lC6ao8W8XhuoAyJVOCW7
	4SD2kKNyxS9eyTPn9c2OSwfYcfd8Hyd0jb6KZXK1QvGUHFCzKMp5JI=
DKIM-Signature:	v=1; a=rsa-sha1; c=relaxed; d=sourceware.org; h=list-id
	:list-unsubscribe:list-subscribe:list-archive:list-post
	:list-help:sender:date:from:to:subject:message-id:reply-to
	:references:mime-version:content-type:in-reply-to; s=default;
	bh=3wPeh07fDyFv2pXBs7Bpk12Al2o=; b=jzpE0K63nJl/tuYRSSEmWT3FKBLr
	WrHDgMNISmdJXiTQ39aAn3B+zDpH0xB9l/w7Pl6abQpucRfjn6we/mcrOKiXz9Or
	B50Ocy0l6UuOYLkyLbDTAN5SGtyorCw1CigRkzj3V8GN8rwIraqkxIRMb0RTYPrB
	xEHTU69HCgi6uKc=
Mailing-List:	contact cygwin-help AT cygwin DOT com; run by ezmlm
List-Id:	<cygwin.cygwin.com>
List-Subscribe:	<mailto:cygwin-subscribe AT cygwin DOT com>
List-Archive:	<http://sourceware.org/ml/cygwin/>
List-Post:	<mailto:cygwin AT cygwin DOT com>
List-Help:	<mailto:cygwin-help AT cygwin DOT com>, <http://sourceware.org/ml/#faqs>
Sender:	cygwin-owner AT cygwin DOT com
Mail-Followup-To:	cygwin AT cygwin DOT com
Delivered-To:	mailing list cygwin AT cygwin DOT com
X-Spam-SWARE-Status:	No, score=-1.4 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE,RCVD_IN_HOSTKARMA_YE,RCVD_IN_SEMBACKSCATTER autolearn=no version=3.3.1
X-Mail-Handler:	Dyn Standard SMTP by Dyn
X-Report-Abuse-To:	abuse AT dyndns DOT com (see http://www.dyndns.com/services/sendlabs/outbound_abuse.html for abuse reporting information)
X-MHO-User:	U2FsdGVkX19l9oiBiXmX50QqC05oTGG/
Date:	Mon, 20 May 2013 12:26:20 -0400
From:	Christopher Faylor <cgf-use-the-mailinglist-please AT cygwin DOT com>
To:	cygwin AT cygwin DOT com
Subject:	Re: BUG: Ability to access nonexistent directories
Message-ID:	<20130520162620.GC1859@ednor.casa.cgf.cx>
Reply-To:	cygwin AT cygwin DOT com
Mail-Followup-To:	cygwin AT cygwin DOT com
References:	<000201ce52c4$891b04c0$9b510e40$%fedin AT samsung DOT com> <20130517083612 DOT GE21752 AT calimero DOT vinschen DOT de> <000d01ce52dc$74e54bb0$5eafe310$%fedin AT samsung DOT com> <20130517102655 DOT GG21752 AT calimero DOT vinschen DOT de> <20130517145612 DOT GC7087 AT ednor DOT casa DOT cgf DOT cx> <001a01ce5550$9e20afd0$da620f70$%fedin AT samsung DOT com>
MIME-Version:	1.0
In-Reply-To:	<001a01ce5550$9e20afd0$da620f70$%fedin@samsung.com>
User-Agent:	Mutt/1.5.20 (2009-06-14)

On Mon, May 20, 2013 at 03:53:16PM +0400, Fedin Pavel wrote:
> Hello!
>
>> >>  Heh...
>> >>  So, complete emulation would cost a major performance drop, right ?
>> >>  Well... Can there be any setting which enables these checks ? At
>> least we have one use case...
>> >
>> >Not without lots of new code.
>> 
>> So, maybe next Thursday?
>
> By the way, you said it would be slow... I have an idea how to implement a
>compromise solution which would not be horribly slow.
> What if we check existence of intermediate paths not every time but only
>when we meet thing like '..' ?
> I'll explain... For example, if we would access /foo/bar/baz, testing for
>/foo and /foo/bar existence would supposedly be a waste of time, because we
>would get "Object not found" on the final path too. But, when processing
>thing like /foo/bar/../baz, we really need to check for intermediate dirs.
>But, still not every time. In this example we actually need to test only for
>/foo/bar's existence. I. e. a path to which we apply '..', before stripping
>the last component.
> Does it make sense ?

Perhaps you should check the archives.  This isn't a new idea.

cgf

--
Problem reports:       http://cygwin.com/problems.html
FAQ:                   http://cygwin.com/faq/
Documentation:         http://cygwin.com/docs.html
Unsubscribe info:      http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple

- Raw text -