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:message-id:date:from:mime-version:to:subject
	:references:in-reply-to:content-type:content-transfer-encoding;
	 q=dns; s=default; b=KU2bKl/iT2aUjdRTa+Fd3K3HtHsEHRG8C+plSvTHG2C
	iGxey2TZHb137fqyGTWSyjYbIA34s0Cmu14VLc78oW6U+ShuMBKvgQvKRb+CUNBx
	V131eultEj35alX62b84JW2796GME6Z6tzXBAnNI98tD0RJW02DW7rMIoLQp5B3g
	=
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:message-id:date:from:mime-version:to:subject
	:references:in-reply-to:content-type:content-transfer-encoding;
	 s=default; bh=lnuq7OU9YztjHOlm2G6XGHqTTLA=; b=E0tEKWeakrMSpNnOx
	5S9PXrTXaRPVEtGhDZ6rTNeDMebQs/JhkkwuWGzk+sYgj3J18oOi4eNbhS6biCpU
	CabNgEQmFMkGMSubXPnvZe2+qcZzIwlsiOjP2A4CoAhRyEGEAC9iuG4Drwdosbnk
	bu5iqMYvLZPcwefYSLao03fPzQ=
Mailing-List: contact cygwin-help AT cygwin DOT com; run by ezmlm
List-Id: <cygwin.cygwin.com>
List-Subscribe: <mailto:cygwin-subscribe AT cygwin DOT com>
List-Archive: <http://sourceware.org/ml/cygwin/>
List-Post: <mailto:cygwin AT cygwin DOT com>
List-Help: <mailto:cygwin-help AT cygwin DOT com>, <http://sourceware.org/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
Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; auth=none
X-Virus-Found: No
X-Spam-SWARE-Status: No, score=-2.0 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,RP_MATCHES_RCVD autolearn=ham version=3.3.2
X-HELO: etr-usa.com
Message-ID: <52FABAF5.2060701@etr-usa.com>
Date: Tue, 11 Feb 2014 17:06:13 -0700
From: Warren Young <warren AT etr-usa DOT com>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.3; WOW64; rv:24.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/24.3.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Cygwin-L <cygwin AT cygwin DOT com>
Subject: Re: get rid of getpwent? (Was: cygwin-1.7.28 getpwent header declaration changes ?)
References: <52F339CA DOT 5070305 AT gmail DOT com> <20140206090117 DOT GD2821 AT calimero DOT vinschen DOT de> <52F361C5 DOT 3000807 AT gmail DOT com> <20140206141321 DOT GI2821 AT calimero DOT vinschen DOT de> <52F40208 DOT 5030901 AT etr-usa DOT com> <20140207094917 DOT GN2821 AT calimero DOT vinschen DOT de> <52F4E540 DOT 2010606 AT tiscali DOT co DOT uk> <52F51D19 DOT 6080807 AT etr-usa DOT com> <31347914-BB4F-4039-984B-731B6C72F903 AT etr-usa DOT com> <52F7AEC5 DOT 5090205 AT tiscali DOT co DOT uk> <8B7B5FE0-7413-4358-BA8A-E0B6E0B17653 AT etr-usa DOT com> <52F8B50E DOT 7040307 AT lysator DOT liu DOT se> <52F92D58 DOT 9030408 AT etr-usa DOT com> <52F95D1D DOT 4050108 AT tiscali DOT co DOT uk> <4510121021 DOT 20140211062515 AT mtu-net DOT ru> <52FAB14C DOT 8060800 AT tiscali DOT co DOT uk>
In-Reply-To: <52FAB14C.8060800@tiscali.co.uk>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-IsSubscribed: yes

On 2/11/2014 16:25, David Stacey wrote:
> getpwent() is called in three different places.

To those of you who have investigated these code paths: do any of them 
look like they couldn't be replaced by getpwnam() or other calls that 
would let cygwin1.dll do single-record AD/SAM lookups, rather than 
whole-table/tree scans?

That is, do any of these programs really need to visit every record in 
/etc/passwd?

> problem was an assumption made in the 'checkfile' perl script: it was
> assumed that cygwin1.dll is the first DLL listed by objdump.

Details, details. :)

--
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