Date: Thu, 27 Sep 2001 23:01:23 +0200 From: "Eli Zaretskii" Sender: halo1 AT zahav DOT net DOT il To: sandmann AT clio DOT rice DOT edu Message-Id: <1225-Thu27Sep2001230122+0300-eliz@is.elta.co.il> X-Mailer: Emacs 20.6 (via feedmail 8.3.emacs20_6 I) and Blat ver 1.8.9 CC: djgpp-workers AT delorie DOT com In-reply-to: <10109271834.AA15343@clio.rice.edu> (sandmann@clio.rice.edu) Subject: Re: fixpath patch (rev 2) References: <10109271834 DOT AA15343 AT clio DOT rice DOT edu> Reply-To: djgpp-workers AT delorie DOT com Errors-To: nobody AT delorie DOT com X-Mailing-List: djgpp-workers AT delorie DOT com X-Unsubscribes-To: listserv AT delorie DOT com Precedence: bulk > From: sandmann AT clio DOT rice DOT edu (Charles Sandmann) > Date: Thu, 27 Sep 2001 13:34:01 -0500 (CDT) > > > I don't understand why do you object to the solution I proposed. If > > UNCs never happen in truename's result, all we pay is a bunch of > > character comparisons. If they do happen, we had better DTRT, even if > > it costs one more call to truename, possibly one more call to getdisk, > > and some character string manipulations. > > I don't object to it, I'm just trying to find out when it might ever be > used (for testing, validation). So far we have gone 7 years without having > the truename backup code in there at all, so I'm hard pressed to understand > why we would need to handle all these sub-cases, and validate they actually > behave correctly. The call to getcwd didn't need this backup because getcwd never returns a UNC. _truename did, at least in my testing.