2004-05-30 Pierre Humblet <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
* path.cc (mount_info::add_item): Make sure native path has drive
or UNC form. Call normalize_xxx_path instead of [back]slashify.
Remove test for double slashes. Reorganize to always debug_print. Index: path.cc
===
On Sun, May 30, 2004 at 12:21:48AM -0400, Pierre A. Humblet wrote:
>2004-05-30 Pierre Humblet <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
> * path.cc (mount_info::add_item): Make sure native path has drive
> or UNC form. Call normalize_xxx_path instead of [back]slashify.
> Remove test for double slas
Yes, we need to remove the final slash, it can be present at the
output of normalize_path
150 761725 [main] mount 671605 mount_info::add_item: c://[c:\\],
/hagfsfd/[/hagfsfd/], 0xA
Pierre
On Sun, May 30, 2004 at 12:48:13AM -0400, Pierre A. Humblet wrote:
>Yes, we need to remove the final slash, it can be present at the
>output of normalize_path
>
> 150 761725 [main] mount 671605 mount_info::add_item: c://[c:\\],
>/hagfsfd/[/hagfsfd/], 0xA
But wouldn't it be faster to just
Yes, we could use tail, but then we need to add logic to preserve
the first / . I was lazy, or perhaps speed is not so important here.
Pierre
I went ahead and applied this. It doesn't appear to break anything. :)
On Mon, 24 May 2004 05:11:51 +0100, John Paul Wallington <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> 2004-05-24 John Paul Wallington <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
> * ssp.c (usage): Add missing linefeed.
>
> --- ssp.c 14 Feb 2004
> >On Fri, 21 May 2004 10:22:20 -0500, Brian Ford wrote:
> >> Ok, then shouldn't we apply the following patch to the users
> >> guide? (plus a typo fix)
Applied with the "planned for development" euphamism.
