On Wed, Feb 22, 2006 at 06:16:25PM -0000, Dave Korn wrote:
>On 22 February 2006 17:31, Christopher Faylor wrote:
>>On Wed, Feb 22, 2006 at 08:21:48AM -0800, Brian Dessent wrote:
>>>Eric Blake wrote:
>>>>and/or have openat() implemented directly in cygwin so that the openat
>>>>emulation of open("/proc/self/fd/4/..") is avoided (not to mention more
>>>>efficient by avoiding several other syscalls during the emulation).
>>>
>>>I think implementing openat() directly would be the clear win here,
>>>since the ".." processing seems to be such a landmine. Of course
>>>without a patch this is just hot air on my part.
>>
>>But, then, it has been at least a couple of months since we've had a
>>rousing discussion about how awful cygwin's '..' handling is, so it's
>>clearly time to go into great depth about how useful it would be if
>>cygwin just did things the RIGHT, the TRUE, the POSIX way.
>
>How many reinstalls does that usually take? ;-)
You take the number of cygwin developers required to change a
POSIX-powered light bulb and multiply by 42.
cgf
--
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/
