Christopher Faylor wrote:
> It looks like yo can still unindent this by changing the == to !=, putting
> the temppath under that and keeping all of the if's at the same level:
Oh, I see now what you mean.
> If the if block is that small, then I think I'd prefer just one comment
> at the beginni
On Sat, Mar 08, 2008 at 07:10:03PM -0800, Brian Dessent wrote:
>Christopher Faylor wrote:
>
>> Would it be possible to uncollapse this if block and make it a little
>> clearer? The "else" nine lines away makes it a little hard to follow.
>> So, wouldn't just inverting the "if (match)" to "if (!mat
Christopher Faylor wrote:
> Would it be possible to uncollapse this if block and make it a little
> clearer? The "else" nine lines away makes it a little hard to follow.
> So, wouldn't just inverting the "if (match)" to "if (!match)" and
> putting the else condition cause some unnesting?
Here's
On Sat, Mar 08, 2008 at 11:01:32AM -0800, Brian Dessent wrote:
>
>The winsup/utils/path.cc file implements a primative POSIX->Win32 path
>conversion API that is independant of the real one in Cygwin. This is
>used by cygcheck as well as strace (for opening the -o parameter).
>Currently this code
The winsup/utils/path.cc file implements a primative POSIX->Win32 path
conversion API that is independant of the real one in Cygwin. This is
used by cygcheck as well as strace (for opening the -o parameter).
Currently this code has bitrotted a bit, and its handling of relative
paths seems to be
On Sat, Mar 08, 2008 at 07:28:52AM -0800, Brian Dessent wrote:
>2008-03-08 Brian Dessent <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
> * Makefile.in: Reorganize considerably, using GNU make's
> static pattern rules and target-specific variables.
Looks good. Please check in.
Thanks.
cgf
This patch is a revamping of the Makefile in winsup/utils. The current
Makefile.in is fugly, in my humble opinion. It's got lots of repeated
rules and it's not very clear how one is supposed to add or change
things. This patch does use GNU make specific features, but I'm quite
sure we already u
