delorie.com/archives/browse.cgi | search |
From: | sandmann AT clio DOT rice DOT edu (Charles Sandmann) |
Message-Id: | <10212170532.AA24812@clio.rice.edu> |
Subject: | Re: proposed putpath.c patch |
To: | djgpp-workers AT delorie DOT com |
Date: | Mon, 16 Dec 2002 23:32:46 -0600 (CST) |
In-Reply-To: | <3DFE4B7F.1F46D3BD@phekda.freeserve.co.uk> from "Richard Dawe" at Dec 16, 2002 09:54:07 PM |
X-Mailer: | ELM [version 2.5 PL2] |
Mime-Version: | 1.0 |
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 |
> Shouldn't it be @file{x:} rather than @var{x:}? x: isn't a variable for the > function. I don't think you need @file{@var{x:}<whatever>}. I think > @file{x:<whatever>} will do. Or was @var{} the right way to do this, before > @file{} was added to texinfo? I can't really comment - it was like this before I made the changes. > I'd like to try building fileutils with the patch applied, but I don't know > when I will get round to it. I also wonder how much slower it will be for the > cases mention. I'm interested to see how slow operations in /dev are... I don't think we have any real speed tests for /dev/con or anything (it would only be on the put_path, which would be open or ...) In the tests I tried, the speed difference wasn't measurable, but maybe Win2K or Win9x cache something so _chmod() call is very fast.
webmaster | delorie software privacy |
Copyright © 2019 by DJ Delorie | Updated Jul 2019 |