On Thu, 20 Oct 2005, Brian Dessent wrote:
> Érsek László wrote:
>
> > after grepping the cygwin mailing list and my up-to-date cygwin
> > installation for "nftw" and "fts_open", I thought that it could make sense
> > (and fun) to implement nftw().
>
> Unfortunately (or perhaps fortunately) the whole discussion is moot
> because these functions were added to Cygwin several months ago by
> Corinna: <http://cygwin.com/ml/cygwin-cvs/2005-q3/msg00069.html>.
Thank you for the information.
I looked at "fts.c" (1.1) and "nftw.c" (1.2). Since nftw() is handled as a
special case of fts_*(),
/* XXX - nfds is currently unused */
And currently,
/* Logical walks turn on NOCHDIR; symbolic links are too hard. */
I took care to support these features of nftw().
Furthermore, fts_*() is nonstandard, nftw() is standard. Of course, it is
possible that fts_*(), as specified, is superior to nftw(), as specified.
http://www.opengroup.org/austin/mailarchives/ag/msg01024.html
http://www.opengroup.org/austin/mailarchives/ag/msg01074.html
It is also possible that barely any application uses FTW_CHDIR without
FTW_PHYS, while many applications use fts_*(). Finally, PTC.
Apart from some grouching that I missed the "deadline" in August (which
actually is fortunate for everyone, I admit), I'm happy that cygwin
provides nftw(). I suppose it will appear in cygwin-1.5.19-1.
Thanks again! (And sorry for crossposting, I hope it's not forbidden.)
lacos
--
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/
