From: sandmann AT clio DOT rice DOT edu (Charles Sandmann)
Message-Id: <10212170532.AA24812@clio.rice.edu>
Subject: Re: proposed putpath.c patch
To: djgpp-workers AT delorie DOT com
Date: Mon, 16 Dec 2002 23:32:46 -0600 (CST)
In-Reply-To: <3DFE4B7F.1F46D3BD@phekda.freeserve.co.uk> from "Richard Dawe" at Dec 16, 2002 09:54:07 PM
X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.5 PL2]
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Reply-To: djgpp-workers AT delorie DOT com
Errors-To: nobody AT delorie DOT com
X-Mailing-List: djgpp-workers AT delorie DOT com
X-Unsubscribes-To: listserv AT delorie DOT com
Precedence: bulk

> Shouldn't it be @file{x:} rather than @var{x:}? x: isn't a variable for the
> function. I don't think you need @file{@var{x:}<whatever>}. I think
> @file{x:<whatever>} will do. Or was @var{} the right way to do this, before
> @file{} was added to texinfo?

I can't really comment - it was like this before I made the changes.

> I'd like to try building fileutils with the patch applied, but I don't know
> when I will get round to it. I also wonder how much slower it will be for the
> cases mention.

I'm interested to see how slow operations in /dev are...  I don't think
we have any real speed tests for /dev/con or anything (it would only be
on the put_path, which would be open or ...)

In the tests I tried, the speed difference wasn't measurable, but maybe
Win2K or Win9x cache something so _chmod() call is very fast.