X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org
Date: Thu, 26 Jan 2006 11:29:32 -0500
From: Christopher Faylor <cgf-no-personal-reply-please@cygwin.com>
To: cygwin@cygwin.com
Subject: Re: new cygwin dlls
Message-ID: <20060126162932.GK26563@trixie.casa.cgf.cx>
Reply-To: cygwin@cygwin.com
References: <012620060339.28204.43D84462000B51C000006E2C22007374780A050E040D0C079D0A@comcast.net> <20060126040648.GE20309@trixie.casa.cgf.cx> <6910a60601252311j3a967f16t@mail.gmail.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <6910a60601252311j3a967f16t@mail.gmail.com>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.11
Mailing-List: contact cygwin-help@cygwin.com; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:cygwin-unsubscribe-archive-cygwin=delorie.com@cygwin.com>
List-Subscribe: <mailto:cygwin-subscribe@cygwin.com>
List-Archive: <http://sourceware.org/ml/cygwin/>
List-Post: <mailto:cygwin@cygwin.com>
List-Help: <mailto:cygwin-help@cygwin.com>, <http://sourceware.org/ml/#faqs>
Sender: cygwin-owner@cygwin.com
Mail-Followup-To: cygwin@cygwin.com
Delivered-To: mailing list cygwin@cygwin.com

On Thu, Jan 26, 2006 at 08:11:23AM +0100, Reini Urban wrote:
>2006/1/26, Christopher Faylor <cgf-no-personal-reply-please@cygwin.com>:
>> On Thu, Jan 26, 2006 at 03:39:14AM +0000, Eric Blake wrote:
>> >>Has a fix been found for building emacs on the new cygwin versions 5.19
>> >>and up yet?
>> >
>> >Yes - browse the list archives - the idea is that anywhere that emacs
>> >uses a non-zero d_ino to mean the entry returned from readdir is valid,
>> >just add a small patch to that area of code that treats ALL directory
>> >entries as valid without reading d_ino.
>>
>> FWIW, it looks like some of our highly trained on-staff programmers may
>> have a plan for resurrecting an all-singing/all-dancing d_ino for every
>> platform but NT4.
>>
>> So, expect d_ino in a snapshot soon - back in Cygwin by popular demand.
>> And, if you're using NT4 - well sorry.  You can blame that programmer or
>> programmers for not being clever enough to figure out how to make it
>> work there.
>
>So seperate emacs binaries for NT4 and Win95, besides the good >= XP?

No.  There would be no change in inode behavior for Win9x since those systems
do not have real inodes.  Only NT4 would suffer from the old problem of d_ino
being != st_ino.

But, then, one of our staff engineers has reported a setback in using this
technique so maybe I was premature in announcing victory.

cgf

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

