On Mon, 15 Dec 2025 18:15:10 +0100 (CET) Johannes Schindelin wrote: > Hi Corinna, > > On Mon, 15 Dec 2025, Corinna Vinschen wrote: > > > On Dec 15 16:40, Johannes Schindelin wrote: > > > Hey Corinna, > > > > > > [Sorry for top-posting] > > > > /*rolling eyes*/ > > I wanted to reply quickly, which precluded me from using a mailer that > allows inlined responses, sorry. > > > > Also, it looks as if that other proposed patch will always add > > > overhead, not only when the reparse point needs to be handled in a > > > special way. Given that this code path imposes already quite a bit of > > > overhead, overhead that delays execution noticeably and makes > > > debugging less delightful than I'd like, I would much prefer to do it > > > in the way that I proposed, where the extra time penalty is imposed > > > _only_ in case the special handling is actually needed. > > > > You may want to discuss this with Takashi. Simplicity vs. Speed ;) > > With that little rationale, the patch to always follow symlinks does not > exactly look simple to me, but complex and requiring some > head-scratching...
The overhead of path_conv with PC_SYM_FOLLOW is small, however, it may be a waste of process time to call it always indeed. However, IMHO, calling CreateFileW() twice is not what we want to do. I've just submitted v2 patch. In v2 patch, use extra path_conv only when the path is a symlink. Usually, simple symlink is already followed in spawn.cc: https://cygwin.com/git/?p=newlib-cygwin.git;a=blob;f=winsup/cygwin/spawn.cc;h=71add8755cabf4cc0113bf9f00924fddb8ddc5b7;hb=HEAD#l46 The code is simpler than your patch 3/3 and my previous patch and intent of the code is clearer. What do you think? -- Takashi Yano <[email protected]>
