Christopher Faylor wrote: > On Thu, Jun 05, 2003 at 06:03:34PM +0100, Max Bowsher wrote: >> 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. > > If you can't back up your conclusions with actual code why should we > assume that you are infallible? No one is that trustworthy.
I assumed you would trust someone telling you whether the read-only attribute of a file was set, without needing to see further evidence? To me, this is an equivalent situation. >> Personally I think "Don't risk anything if there is no potential gain" is >> reasonably persuasive. > > Lets use the popular reasoning here. If there was no potential gain > then Microsoft would not have provided the option, would they? Since > they did there has to be *some* potential gain. But their option isn't on by default. So, presumably, there must be some circumstances when it is undesirable. > Thanks for not mentioning that you think a CYGWIN environment variable > option is the way to go for this. I guess we're making minor progress > now. I would still like some mechanism to force sparse file creation off, but since that seems unlikely to happen, I guess I will try to think of a way to improve the heuristic for deciding whether to make files sparse. Max. -- 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/
