On Mon, May 20, 2013 at 03:53:16PM +0400, Fedin Pavel wrote: > Hello! > >> >> Heh... >> >> So, complete emulation would cost a major performance drop, right ? >> >> Well... Can there be any setting which enables these checks ? At >> least we have one use case... >> > >> >Not without lots of new code. >> >> So, maybe next Thursday? > > By the way, you said it would be slow... I have an idea how to implement a >compromise solution which would not be horribly slow. > What if we check existence of intermediate paths not every time but only >when we meet thing like '..' ? > I'll explain... For example, if we would access /foo/bar/baz, testing for >/foo and /foo/bar existence would supposedly be a waste of time, because we >would get "Object not found" on the final path too. But, when processing >thing like /foo/bar/../baz, we really need to check for intermediate dirs. >But, still not every time. In this example we actually need to test only for >/foo/bar's existence. I. e. a path to which we apply '..', before stripping >the last component. > Does it make sense ?
Perhaps you should check the archives. This isn't a new idea. cgf -- Problem reports: http://cygwin.com/problems.html FAQ: http://cygwin.com/faq/ Documentation: http://cygwin.com/docs.html Unsubscribe info: http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple