Mailing-List: contact cygwin-help AT cygwin DOT com; run by ezmlm List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: cygwin-owner AT cygwin DOT com Mail-Followup-To: cygwin AT cygwin DOT com Delivered-To: mailing list cygwin AT cygwin DOT com Date: Thu, 5 Jun 2003 18:08:47 +0200 From: Corinna Vinschen To: cygwin AT cygwin DOT com Subject: Re: Sparse file criteria malfunction - binutils produces sparse .exe & .dll files Message-ID: <20030605160847.GZ875@cygbert.vinschen.de> Reply-To: cygwin AT cygwin DOT com Mail-Followup-To: cygwin AT cygwin DOT com References: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.1i On Thu, Jun 05, 2003 at 10:48:39AM -0500, Gary R. Van Sickle wrote: > Wait, no, *100%* of Cygwin users on NTFS are negatively ^^^^^^^^^^ ?????????? I'm also on NTFS and I don't suffer, especially after the latest change. > Yes, now it'll be only if you write past the end of the file. Which apparently > binutils does. Well, that's something I guess. Why does everybody fail to evidence? I'm having a lot of projects on my XP/NTFS system since I'm a developer developing for Cygwin. I'm running the latest DLL from CVS. Guess what? I didn't see any proof that ld or strip create sparse files. All *.a, *.o and *.exe files take as much blocks as to be expected by non-sparse files. > Let the not-so-passive-aggressive semi-namecalling begin (I suggest "Assistant > Adjutant General Complainer JG"). But tell me where I'm wrong first. You're argumenting without proof. Corinna -- Corinna Vinschen Please, send mails regarding Cygwin to Cygwin Developer mailto:cygwin AT cygwin DOT com Red Hat, Inc. -- 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/