X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org From: "Dave Korn" To: Subject: RE: another instance of .. issues Date: Wed, 22 Feb 2006 18:16:25 -0000 Message-ID: <018701c637dc$17d1b530$a501a8c0@CAM.ARTIMI.COM> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit In-Reply-To: <20060222173034.GA18903@trixie.casa.cgf.cx> Mailing-List: contact cygwin-help AT cygwin DOT com; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: 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 On 22 February 2006 17:31, Christopher Faylor wrote: > On Wed, Feb 22, 2006 at 08:21:48AM -0800, Brian Dessent wrote: >> Eric Blake wrote: >>> and/or have openat() implemented directly in cygwin so that the openat >>> emulation of open("/proc/self/fd/4/..") is avoided (not to mention more >>> efficient by avoiding several other syscalls during the emulation). >> >> I think implementing openat() directly would be the clear win here, >> since the ".." processing seems to be such a landmine. Of course >> without a patch this is just hot air on my part. > > But, then, it has been at least a couple of months since we've had > a rousing discussion about how awful cygwin's '..' handling is, so > it's clearly time to go into great depth about how useful it would > be if cygwin just did things the RIGHT, the TRUE, the POSIX way. > > cgf How many reinstalls does that usually take? ;-) cheers, DaveK -- Can't think of a witty .sigline today.... -- 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/