Mailing-List: contact cygwin-help AT cygwin DOT com; run by ezmlm
List-Subscribe: <mailto:cygwin-subscribe AT cygwin DOT com>
List-Archive: <http://sources.redhat.com/ml/cygwin/>
List-Post: <mailto:cygwin AT cygwin DOT com>
List-Help: <mailto:cygwin-help AT cygwin DOT com>, <http://sources.redhat.com/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
Date: Wed, 24 Mar 2004 16:42:39 -0500
From: Christopher Faylor <cgf-no-personal-reply-please AT cygwin DOT com>
To: cygwin AT cygwin DOT com
Subject: Re: lstat on FAT - Was: Problem with find on FAT drives
Message-ID: <20040324214239.GA6079@redhat.com>
Reply-To: cygwin AT cygwin DOT com
Mail-Followup-To: cygwin AT cygwin DOT com
References: <Pine DOT LNX DOT 4 DOT 44 DOT 0403231316380 DOT 32093-100000 AT ashi DOT FootPrints DOT net> <4060B627 DOT 8000400 AT scytek DOT de> <20040324155332 DOT GF17229 AT cygbert DOT vinschen DOT de> <4061E702 DOT 1040705 AT scytek DOT de> <20040324205644 DOT GA4580 AT redhat DOT com> <20040324213057 DOT GA296803 AT Worldnet>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20040324213057.GA296803@Worldnet>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.1i

On Wed, Mar 24, 2004 at 04:30:57PM -0500, Pierre A. Humblet wrote:
>On Wed, Mar 24, 2004 at 03:56:44PM -0500, Christopher Faylor wrote:
>> On Wed, Mar 24, 2004 at 02:52:34PM -0500, Volker Quetschke wrote:
>> >Hi Corinna,
>> >
>> >>>Looks pretty similar to me, but I was looking for the following:
>> >>>
>> >>>$ ls -ldin .\\tmp ./tmp
>> >>>2919335057    drwxr-xr-x 4 1006   513         0 Mar 10 13:06 ./tmp/
>> >>>2805415844195 drwxr-xr-x 4 1006   513         0 Mar 10 13:06 .\tmp/
>> >>>
>> >>>I came to that "program" by reducing the find soure to the bare
>> >>>minimum to show that problem.
>> >>>
>> >>>So again, is this an expected/tolerated behaviour?
>> >>
>> >>Yes, it's by design.  The answer is "don't use DOS paths".
>> >
>> >It's nice to be mean, isn't it?
>> 
>> How about some clarification: "Don't use DOS paths if you want
>> consistent i-nodes?"
>> 
>> You're welcome to use DOS paths if you want.  You just can't expect
>> UNIX-style behavior from them.
>
>I also had a look at the code and reached pretty much the same conclusion
>as Volker. Replacing all 'isslash (*src)' and 'isslash (src[x])' in
>normalize_posix_path by "isdirsep ()" would yield more consistent results.
>I know this code is delicate but the possible drawback isn't obvious.

speed disadvantage for nebulous gain.

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/