X-Recipient: archive-cygwin AT delorie DOT com X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-2.4 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,SPF_HELO_PASS X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Message-ID: <4A089163.7050600@cygwin.com> Date: Mon, 11 May 2009 16:58:11 -0400 From: "Larry Hall (Cygwin)" Reply-To: cygwin AT cygwin DOT com User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; en-US; rv:1.8.1.19) Gecko/20090101 Remi/2.0.0.19-1.fc8.remi Lightning/0.9 Thunderbird/2.0.0.19 Mnenhy/0.7.5.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: cygwin AT cygwin DOT com Subject: Re: Mount of VSS volumes (//?/GLOBALROOT/...) does not work 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> In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Mailing-List: contact cygwin-help AT cygwin DOT com; run by ezmlm List-Id: 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 Jason Pyeron wrote: > 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. Sounds like it could use a patch or two. ;-) Maybe someone else on this list that uses it would have some ideas. >>>>> 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). I can't say. I haven't. Certainly if there's a way to make this faster, easier, and better without any sacrifices, I think that would be generally welcome. :-) -- Larry Hall http://www.rfk.com RFK Partners, Inc. (508) 893-9779 - RFK Office 216 Dalton Rd. (508) 893-9889 - FAX Holliston, MA 01746 _____________________________________________________________________ A: Yes. > Q: Are you sure? >> A: Because it reverses the logical flow of conversation. >>> Q: Why is top posting annoying in email? -- 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/