On 6/4/2010 2:20 PM, Christopher Faylor wrote:
"But providing a variant of stat() along the lines of what you propose
above is not practical for all the reasons already stated."
This is not something that I said. That was actually Larry Hall.
Heh. Who needs him anyway!
Just to clarify, this comment was in response to Chris Wingerts' assertion
(<http://cygwin.com/ml/cygwin/2010-06/msg00033.html>) that it would be
worthwhile to provide some kind of switch to selectively disable the
expensive parts of stat(). And my point was that this had already been
discounted as a transparent way of addressing the performance problem
because it would still be up to the user or application to determine when
to make this trade-off (<http://cygwin.com/ml/cygwin/2010-05/msg00751.html>).
This is the same conclusion Chris Wingert has now come to as well and stated
in <http://cygwin.com/ml/cygwin/2010-06/msg00121.html>:
All that being said, I think the best solution is not to optimize the dll
stat(), but to do it at the executable level. I see that Cygwin already
has some level of patches at this level, it shouldn't be too difficult to
support.
So we're all back on the same page now. :-)
--
Larry Hall http://www.rfk.com
RFK Partners, Inc. (508) 893-9779 - RFK Office
216 Dalton Rd. (508) 893-9889 - FAX
Holliston, MA 01746
_____________________________________________________________________
A: Yes.
Q: Are you sure?
A: Because it reverses the logical flow of conversation.
Q: Why is top posting annoying in email?
--
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
