Mailing-List: contact cygwin-developers-help AT cygwin DOT com; run by ezmlm
List-Subscribe: <mailto:cygwin-developers-subscribe AT cygwin DOT com>
List-Archive: <http://sources.redhat.com/ml/cygwin-developers/>
List-Post: <mailto:cygwin-developers AT cygwin DOT com>
List-Help: <mailto:cygwin-developers-help AT cygwin DOT com>, <http://sources.redhat.com/ml/#faqs>
Sender: cygwin-developers-owner AT cygwin DOT com
Delivered-To: mailing list cygwin-developers AT cygwin DOT com
Date: Mon, 26 Aug 2002 10:58:48 -0400
From: Christopher Faylor <cgf AT redhat DOT com>
To: cygwin-developers AT cygwin DOT com
Subject: Re: readv/writev
Message-ID: <20020826145848.GA1626@redhat.com>
Reply-To: cygwin-developers AT cygwin DOT com
Mail-Followup-To: cygwin-developers AT cygwin DOT com
References: <00c501c2496e$39ae2720$6132bc3e AT BABEL> <1029976536 DOT 27825 DOT 46 DOT camel AT lifelesswks> <025401c24a0d$1c996380$6132bc3e AT BABEL> <1030060087 DOT 8462 DOT 14 DOT camel AT lifelesswks> <20020824191035 DOT GB27153 AT redhat DOT com> <018201c24d0b$aa2d26e0$6132bc3e AT BABEL> <20020826162921 DOT M5475 AT cygbert DOT vinschen DOT de> <1030372690 DOT 13255 DOT 78 DOT camel AT lifelesswks> <20020826164823 DOT N5475 AT cygbert DOT vinschen DOT de>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20020826164823.N5475@cygbert.vinschen.de>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.3.23.1i

On Mon, Aug 26, 2002 at 04:48:23PM +0200, Corinna Vinschen wrote:
>On Tue, Aug 27, 2002 at 12:38:09AM +1000, Robert Collins wrote:
>> On Tue, 2002-08-27 at 00:29, Corinna Vinschen wrote:
>> > On Mon, Aug 26, 2002 at 03:20:00PM +0100, Conrad Scott wrote:
>> > > "Christopher Faylor" <cgf AT redhat DOT com> wrote:
>> > > > There shouldn't really be that much overhead to the current
>> > > method for
>> > > > handling text/binary reads, though.  It's just checking a bit
>> > > field.
>> > > 
>> > > At the coal-face it ends up being a bit more messy than that.  For
>> > > example, the fhandler::read code checks the readahead buffers for
>> > > pending data but they will always be empty in binary-mode (AFAIK)
>> > > . In fact there's a page of code before the check for whether a
>> > > binary read is being done and only then does the code escape back
>> > > to the caller.  Since (AFAIK) you can't change the text/binary
>> > > mode of an fd once it's been opened (and thus the readahead
>> > 
>> > You can.  setmode(fd, O_TEXT); or setmode(fd, O_BINARY);
>> 
>> Which is why I was suggesting stripping O_TEXT capability for raw FD's,
>> and making the TEXT translation only ever apply to the FILE * calls -
>> fprintf, fscanf, fread etc...
>> 
>> It allows all the fd level code to be much much simpler.
>
>Sure, I *love* the idea, but it would break applications, e. g. ash,
>which opens input files on descriptor level.

Right.  It basically breaks the way it's supposed to WORK.  This is a
nonsensical suggestion.  Why do you think it is the way it is currently,
Robert?  Textmode translations work on fd and they are supposed to work
on fds.

That you would suggest anything other than that means that either I'm
not getting your suggestion or you are way off base.

Corinna says "You can use setmode on an fd" and you say "My suggestion
is to break all backwards compatibility and break with the way Microsoft
does it so that the code will be cleaner."  That's what I'm hearing and
that just won't fly.

cgf