Corinna Vinschen wrote: > On Thu, Jun 05, 2003 at 05:25:18PM +0100, Max Bowsher wrote: >> I threw together a horrible C program to ask Windows whether a file was >> sparse. .exe and .dll files made with a 1.5.0 Cygwin are. I haven't posted >> the test program, because it is too messy. >> [...] >> I give proof that dll/exe files are being created sparse above. > > Uhm...
I like to think that I'm sufficiently trustworthy not to lie about a clear yes/no fact. But, fine, I've attached my messy code. >> Do you mean proof that sparseness of .exe files is harmful? >> Data has already been posted by me and others showing that sparse files >> consume excess disc space. > > It does if it's used for files smaller than 128K. That's probably > an argument to sparsify a file only if the lseek hole is >= 128K > but it's not an argument against sparse files at all. I'm perfectly > happy with changing this from 64K to 128K, ok? OK, I will up the limit and retry binutils. >> a sparse file - I have no test data, but since sparseness gains me nothing, >> and might lose me something, I dont like it._ > > That's a good argument. I'm speechless. Personally I think "Don't risk anything if there is no potential gain" is reasonably persuasive. >> So, the point is, for the majority of users, sparseness gains nothing, and >> can have undesirable effects. >> Therefore, I really think it should be off by default. > > We're now on the path of opinion. My opinion is to drop 9x/Me > support entirely from Cygwin since it just requires ugly hacks > in the code. But that's not actually an argument to do it in > reality. Well, keeping 9x/Me support gains 9x/Me users a lot. What does sparseness-on-by-default gain users? If anything, I don't see it. Max.
sparse.cc
Description: Binary data
-- Unsubscribe info: http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple Problem reports: http://cygwin.com/problems.html Documentation: http://cygwin.com/docs.html FAQ: http://cygwin.com/faq/
