X-Recipient: archive-cygwin AT delorie DOT com X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-2.1 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00 X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org From: "Jason Pyeron" To: References: <8881AD4AE397468EA9277BFB94782F18 AT phoenix> <4A0849F3 DOT 4090502 AT cygwin DOT com> <4A0852A1 DOT 6050604 AT cygwin DOT com> <5F6283A8965E432A89BC3CD6B980DAAB AT phoenix> <4A087770 DOT 3090602 AT cygwin DOT com> Subject: RE: Mount of VSS volumes (//?/GLOBALROOT/...) does not work Date: Mon, 11 May 2009 16:17:44 -0400 Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit In-Reply-To: <4A087770.3090602@cygwin.com> X-IsSubscribed: yes Mailing-List: contact cygwin-help AT cygwin DOT com; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: cygwin-owner AT cygwin DOT com Mail-Followup-To: cygwin AT cygwin DOT com Delivered-To: mailing list cygwin AT cygwin DOT com Larry Hall (Cygwin) wrote on Monday, May 11, 2009 15:07: > Jason Pyeron wrote: >> Sorry, I ignored the list addresses, I always try to remove peoples' >> addresses. (any suggestions for outlok 2003?) > > > > I don't use Outlook so I can't speak for this but I've heard > others on the list mention it. > Sorta nice, but still does not let me munge the email address, infact it gets all confused on lists. It put cygwin-owner atsign cygwin.com for this email, and it is failing to strip sigs after sig dashes. But it quotes mail nicely. >>>> Hmm, could I get a primmer on where to look to understand more. >>>> I.E. which sources/functions. >>> >> > > 546&conten t-type=text/x-cvsweb-markup&cvsroot=src> >> >> Here is the question I am going with: If the path starts with \\?\ >> don't strip the trailing slash, can this be cost effective or only >> cost more in that case? > > The real question that comes into play this path conversion > code is whether or not any additional check/code is cost > effective. Perfectly understood. > This code is called constantly so a change that > adds to the overhead of this call is going to be magnified > many times, which is obviously a negative. > Has anyone done a branching analysis on it? I have not finished groking it all yet, but there is Allways Room for Improvement(TM). -- -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- - - - Jason Pyeron PD Inc. http://www.pdinc.us - - Principal Consultant 10 West 24th Street #100 - - +1 (443) 269-1555 x333 Baltimore, Maryland 21218 - - - -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- This message is copyright PD Inc, subject to license 20080407P00. -- 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/