From:	"Tim Van Holder" <tim DOT van DOT holder AT pandora DOT be>
To:	<djgpp-workers AT delorie DOT com>
Cc:	<snowball3 AT bigfoot DOT com>, "Eli Zaretskii" <eliz AT is DOT elta DOT co DOT il>
Subject:	Re: spawn* and LFN again
Date:	Sat, 12 May 2001 17:49:07 +0200
Message-ID:	<CAEGKOHJKAAFPKOCLHDIIEEDCDAA.tim.van.holder@pandora.be>
MIME-Version:	1.0
X-Priority:	3 (Normal)
X-MSMail-Priority:	Normal
X-Mailer:	Microsoft Outlook IMO, Build 9.0.2416 (9.0.2910.0)
In-Reply-To:	<1858-Sat12May2001131900+0300-eliz@is.elta.co.il>
X-MimeOLE:	Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4133.2400
Importance:	Normal
Reply-To:	djgpp-workers AT delorie DOT com
Errors-To:	nobody AT delorie DOT com
X-Mailing-List:	djgpp-workers AT delorie DOT com
X-Unsubscribes-To:	listserv AT delorie DOT com

> But that's not what we want if `foo' is an unstubbed COFF: such
> executables are run via go32-v2, which is both slower and has some
> unpleasant side effects in subtle cases (the stack size and other
> stubinfo fields are not always honored, command-line length is limited
> to 126 characters, etc.).
> 
> So we actually have a good reason to look for foo.exe first.
> 
Perhaps, but not if it already has an executable extension.  If we
have to choose between 'foo.exe' (because we were asked for it) and
'foo.exe.exe' (which we created by tacking on the .exe), we should
go for 'foo.exe' IMHO.
Also, what if 'foo' is a shell script and 'foo.exe' already exists?
Should we prefer foo.exe just because it is faster?

Of course such situations will probably occur very rarely, so it
may not be worth the trouble to add the extra logic to spawnv() and
friends.

- Raw text -