X-Recipient:	archive-cygwin AT delorie DOT com
X-SWARE-Spam-Status:	No, hits=-1.6 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00
X-Spam-Check-By:	sourceware.org
Message-ID:	<b8832ccca61b1d5a1e3dba6d087b3a5b.squirrel@www.webmail.wingert.org>
In-Reply-To:	<20100605052429.GA4801@ednor.casa.cgf.cx>
References:	<20100605052429 DOT GA4801 AT ednor DOT casa DOT cgf DOT cx>
Date:	Sat, 5 Jun 2010 08:43:50 -0700
Subject:	Re: Cygwin Performance and stat()
From:	"Christopher Wingert" <mailbox AT wingert DOT org>
To:	cygwin AT cygwin DOT com
User-Agent:	SquirrelMail/1.4.20
MIME-Version:	1.0
Mailing-List:	contact cygwin-help AT cygwin DOT com; run by ezmlm
List-Id:	<cygwin.cygwin.com>
List-Unsubscribe:	<mailto:cygwin-unsubscribe-archive-cygwin=delorie DOT com AT cygwin DOT com>
List-Subscribe:	<mailto:cygwin-subscribe AT cygwin DOT com>
List-Archive:	<http://sourceware.org/ml/cygwin/>
List-Post:	<mailto:cygwin AT cygwin DOT com>
List-Help:	<mailto:cygwin-help AT cygwin DOT com>, <http://sourceware.org/ml/#faqs>
Sender:	cygwin-owner AT cygwin DOT com
Mail-Followup-To:	cygwin AT cygwin DOT com
Delivered-To:	mailing list cygwin AT cygwin DOT com

> Can't really parse that sentence.

Then load your English parser.


> I haven't detected any "picking on" but then I can't claim to have
> written the fhandler* code anymore Corinna has rewritten most of it.  I
> do know that if you want to be taken seriously you really need to send a
> concrete suggestion/patch.

I don't know the right answer to the problem.

BUT... I have shown how to do achieve similar results to the dll, but with
significantly less overhead.

So... the person who cared to improve his/her/its code would say,  "Well
we use NTOpenFile() because it does the blah blah extra functionality that
FindNextFile()/GetFileAttributes() do not."  Then we could look to other
Win32 APIs to try to achieve those results.

For example opening a file on Windows for the purposes of stat()ing a file
is dumb, considering the way most Windows Virus Scanners work.



> So far, it seems to me that you're basically thinking out loud and
> expecting us to fill in the blanks.  That's not an effective way to
> getting anything changed.

Yes, thinking out loud is an effective way for a team to work together. 
You should try it....





--
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

- Raw text -