On May 19 10:08, Brian Ford wrote: > On Wed, 19 May 2004, Corinna Vinschen wrote: > > > So that explains your patch to symlink_info::check. But it's not > > exactly right to circumvent this only for pipes. Any \\.\foo path > > should get the same handling. Wouldn't it be more straightforward to > > use is_unc_share or a slightly modified version of is_unc_share? > > I'm confused here. Are you suggesting that UNC paths can't contain > symlinks?
No. It should be short-circuited for //./foo and //server/pipe/foo, not for any other UNC path. Corinna -- Corinna Vinschen Please, send mails regarding Cygwin to Cygwin Co-Project Leader mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Red Hat, Inc.
