X-Recipient: archive-cygwin AT delorie DOT com DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=sourceware.org; h=list-id :list-unsubscribe:list-subscribe:list-archive:list-post :list-help:sender:date:from:to:subject:message-id:reply-to :references:mime-version:content-type:in-reply-to; q=dns; s= default; b=SbmM2BJl52SAckwQuTEGtGrUttOK5fBxQqyv1x32mEbRHZ9HcG+x2 IqB8Emkeargu1td5gCDrHN/58yvb++JnImdRgvTYgnV5lC6ao8W8XhuoAyJVOCW7 4SD2kKNyxS9eyTPn9c2OSwfYcfd8Hyd0jb6KZXK1QvGUHFCzKMp5JI= DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha1; c=relaxed; d=sourceware.org; h=list-id :list-unsubscribe:list-subscribe:list-archive:list-post :list-help:sender:date:from:to:subject:message-id:reply-to :references:mime-version:content-type:in-reply-to; s=default; bh=3wPeh07fDyFv2pXBs7Bpk12Al2o=; b=jzpE0K63nJl/tuYRSSEmWT3FKBLr WrHDgMNISmdJXiTQ39aAn3B+zDpH0xB9l/w7Pl6abQpucRfjn6we/mcrOKiXz9Or B50Ocy0l6UuOYLkyLbDTAN5SGtyorCw1CigRkzj3V8GN8rwIraqkxIRMb0RTYPrB xEHTU69HCgi6uKc= Mailing-List: contact cygwin-help AT cygwin DOT com; run by ezmlm List-Id: 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 X-Spam-SWARE-Status: No, score=-1.4 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE,RCVD_IN_HOSTKARMA_YE,RCVD_IN_SEMBACKSCATTER autolearn=no version=3.3.1 X-Mail-Handler: Dyn Standard SMTP by Dyn X-Report-Abuse-To: abuse AT dyndns DOT com (see http://www.dyndns.com/services/sendlabs/outbound_abuse.html for abuse reporting information) X-MHO-User: U2FsdGVkX19l9oiBiXmX50QqC05oTGG/ Date: Mon, 20 May 2013 12:26:20 -0400 From: Christopher Faylor To: cygwin AT cygwin DOT com Subject: Re: BUG: Ability to access nonexistent directories Message-ID: <20130520162620.GC1859@ednor.casa.cgf.cx> Reply-To: cygwin AT cygwin DOT com Mail-Followup-To: cygwin AT cygwin DOT com References: <000201ce52c4$891b04c0$9b510e40$%fedin AT samsung DOT com> <20130517083612 DOT GE21752 AT calimero DOT vinschen DOT de> <000d01ce52dc$74e54bb0$5eafe310$%fedin AT samsung DOT com> <20130517102655 DOT GG21752 AT calimero DOT vinschen DOT de> <20130517145612 DOT GC7087 AT ednor DOT casa DOT cgf DOT cx> <001a01ce5550$9e20afd0$da620f70$%fedin AT samsung DOT com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <001a01ce5550$9e20afd0$da620f70$%fedin@samsung.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.20 (2009-06-14) On Mon, May 20, 2013 at 03:53:16PM +0400, Fedin Pavel wrote: > Hello! > >> >> Heh... >> >> So, complete emulation would cost a major performance drop, right ? >> >> Well... Can there be any setting which enables these checks ? At >> least we have one use case... >> > >> >Not without lots of new code. >> >> So, maybe next Thursday? > > By the way, you said it would be slow... I have an idea how to implement a >compromise solution which would not be horribly slow. > What if we check existence of intermediate paths not every time but only >when we meet thing like '..' ? > I'll explain... For example, if we would access /foo/bar/baz, testing for >/foo and /foo/bar existence would supposedly be a waste of time, because we >would get "Object not found" on the final path too. But, when processing >thing like /foo/bar/../baz, we really need to check for intermediate dirs. >But, still not every time. In this example we actually need to test only for >/foo/bar's existence. I. e. a path to which we apply '..', before stripping >the last component. > Does it make sense ? Perhaps you should check the archives. This isn't a new idea. cgf -- Problem reports: http://cygwin.com/problems.html FAQ: http://cygwin.com/faq/ Documentation: http://cygwin.com/docs.html Unsubscribe info: http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple