On Sat, Mar 27, 2004 at 12:05:22PM -0500, Pierre A. Humblet wrote:
>At 03:03 PM 3/26/2004 -0500, Christopher Faylor wrote:
>>[just to provide a non-flip answer to this subject]
>>On Wed, Mar 24, 2004 at 09:39:29PM -0500, Pierre A. Humblet wrote:
>>>On Wed, Mar 24, 2004 at 04:42:39PM -0500, Christop
At 03:03 PM 3/26/2004 -0500, Christopher Faylor wrote:
>[just to provide a non-flip answer to this subject]
>On Wed, Mar 24, 2004 at 09:39:29PM -0500, Pierre A. Humblet wrote:
>>On Wed, Mar 24, 2004 at 04:42:39PM -0500, Christopher Faylor wrote:
>>I wonder if
>> char *p = strrchr (src, '\0');
[just to provide a non-flip answer to this subject]
On Wed, Mar 24, 2004 at 09:39:29PM -0500, Pierre A. Humblet wrote:
>On Wed, Mar 24, 2004 at 04:42:39PM -0500, Christopher Faylor wrote:
>As you know isdirsep would take 1 extra compare per character.
>
>FWIW I see one place where we could avoid th
On Mar 24 23:15, Christopher Faylor wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 24, 2004 at 09:39:29PM -0500, Pierre A. Humblet wrote:
> >On Wed, Mar 24, 2004 at 04:42:39PM -0500, Christopher Faylor wrote:
> >>On Wed, Mar 24, 2004 at 04:30:57PM -0500, Pierre A. Humblet wrote:
> >>>
> >>>I also had a look at the code and
On Wed, Mar 24, 2004 at 11:33:44PM -0500, Larry Hall wrote:
>At 11:15 PM 3/24/2004, cgf wrote:
>>I'm quitting my job and getting a job as a psychic in the carnival!
>
>Aha! CGF unmasked! All his meanness stems from his frustrated, deep-
>rooted desire to be a 'carnie'!! Now it all makes sense.
>
>T
At 11:15 PM 3/24/2004, you wrote:
>On Wed, Mar 24, 2004 at 09:39:29PM -0500, Pierre A. Humblet wrote:
>>On Wed, Mar 24, 2004 at 04:42:39PM -0500, Christopher Faylor wrote:
>>>On Wed, Mar 24, 2004 at 04:30:57PM -0500, Pierre A. Humblet wrote:
I also had a look at the code and reached pretty
On Wed, Mar 24, 2004 at 09:39:29PM -0500, Pierre A. Humblet wrote:
>On Wed, Mar 24, 2004 at 04:42:39PM -0500, Christopher Faylor wrote:
>>On Wed, Mar 24, 2004 at 04:30:57PM -0500, Pierre A. Humblet wrote:
>>>
>>>I also had a look at the code and reached pretty much the same conclusion
>>>as Volker.
On Wed, Mar 24, 2004 at 04:42:39PM -0500, Christopher Faylor wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 24, 2004 at 04:30:57PM -0500, Pierre A. Humblet wrote:
> >
> >I also had a look at the code and reached pretty much the same conclusion
> >as Volker. Replacing all 'isslash (*src)' and 'isslash (src[x])' in
> >normali
On Wed, Mar 24, 2004 at 06:12:05PM -0500, Volker Quetschke wrote:
>>>I also had a look at the code and reached pretty much the same conclusion
>>>as Volker. Replacing all 'isslash (*src)' and 'isslash (src[x])' in
>>>normalize_posix_path by "isdirsep ()" would yield more consistent results.
>>>I kn
With the small problem that we're still working on src and not
dst, and we cannot do the replacement on src because it is const.
But I think you got the idea. Sorry
This is not done for "normal" DOS paths, IMHO consistency
would require that all remaining "\" are converted to "/" for all
paths. Is
I also had a look at the code and reached pretty much the same conclusion
as Volker. Replacing all 'isslash (*src)' and 'isslash (src[x])' in
normalize_posix_path by "isdirsep ()" would yield more consistent results.
I know this code is delicate but the possible drawback isn't obvious.
speed disadv
On Wed, Mar 24, 2004 at 04:30:57PM -0500, Pierre A. Humblet wrote:
>On Wed, Mar 24, 2004 at 03:56:44PM -0500, Christopher Faylor wrote:
>> On Wed, Mar 24, 2004 at 02:52:34PM -0500, Volker Quetschke wrote:
>> >Hi Corinna,
>> >
>> >>>Looks pretty similar to me, but I was looking for the following:
>>
Hi!
Sorry, I just have to ask this, see below.
So again, is this an expected/tolerated behaviour?
Yes, it's by design. The answer is "don't use DOS paths".
It's nice to be mean, isn't it?
How about some clarification: "Don't use DOS paths if you want
consistent i-nodes?"
You're welcome to use DO
On Wed, Mar 24, 2004 at 03:56:44PM -0500, Christopher Faylor wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 24, 2004 at 02:52:34PM -0500, Volker Quetschke wrote:
> >Hi Corinna,
> >
> >>>Looks pretty similar to me, but I was looking for the following:
> >>>
> >>>$ ls -ldin .\\tmp ./tmp
> >>>2919335057drwxr-xr-x 4 1006
On Wed, Mar 24, 2004 at 02:52:34PM -0500, Volker Quetschke wrote:
>Hi Corinna,
>
>>>Looks pretty similar to me, but I was looking for the following:
>>>
>>>$ ls -ldin .\\tmp ./tmp
>>>2919335057drwxr-xr-x 4 1006 513 0 Mar 10 13:06 ./tmp/
>>>2805415844195 drwxr-xr-x 4 1006 513
Hi Corinna,
Looks pretty similar to me, but I was looking for the following:
$ ls -ldin .\\tmp ./tmp
2919335057drwxr-xr-x 4 1006 513 0 Mar 10 13:06 ./tmp/
2805415844195 drwxr-xr-x 4 1006 513 0 Mar 10 13:06 .\tmp/
I came to that "program" by reducing the find soure to the b
On Mar 23 17:11, Volker Quetschke wrote:
> $ ls -ldin tmp tmp/.
> 2919335057 drwxr-xr-x 4 1006 513 0 Mar 10 13:06 tmp/
> 2919335057 drwxr-xr-x 4 1006 513 0 Mar 10 13:06 tmp/./
>
> Looks pretty similar to me, but I was looking for the following:
>
> $ ls -ldin .\\tmp ./tmp
> 2919
Hi Kaz,
I just found a strange problem when using find on a FAT drive.
I got: "find: .\tmp changed during execution of find"
OK, I analyzed the problem a bit and found that lstat can
give different inode numbers on fat, see the attached testcase.
Structurally, FAT does not have inodes or hard link
On Tue, 23 Mar 2004, Volker Quetschke wrote:
> Date: Tue, 23 Mar 2004 14:45:41 -0500
> From: Volker Quetschke <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: [cygwin] lstat on FAT - Was: Problem with find on FAT drives
>
> > Hi!
> >
> > I just found
Hi!
I just found a strange problem when using find on a FAT drive.
I got: "find: .\tmp changed during execution of find"
OK, I analyzed the problem a bit and found that lstat can
give different inode numbers on fat, see the attached testcase.
To test this you have to have a directory called tmp in
20 matches
Mail list logo
