On Fri, Apr 22, 2005 at 10:37:50AM +0200, Corinna Vinschen wrote: >On Apr 21 16:28, Christopher Faylor wrote: >> On Thu, Apr 21, 2005 at 08:15:33PM +0000, Eric Blake wrote: >> I >> >originally wrote this program to discover that inode reporting in >> >readdir() is broken (to which you replied that fixing it would cause >> >too much of a slowdown), >> >> Yes, both Corinna and I had potential "fixes" (neither being a complete >> fix) for this in our sandboxes but they didn't make it into 1.5.15. >> Corinna got this working for >=XP which means that it wouldn't be right >> only on NTFS file systems on NT3.5, NT4, and NT2K. I just was going to >> get rid of the inode field entirely because, as you'd previously said, >> any well-designed software would adapt to the lack of that field. > >I'm not sure this presumption is correct. The d_ino field is not marked >as optional in SUSv3, it's marked as an XSI extension. The crux with >XSI extensions is that (quote SuSv3) "Application writers may confidently >make use of an extension on all systems supporting the X/Open System >Interfaces Extension." This covers practically every serious system in >the POSIX world right now. If we drop d_ino, I'd expect another round >of suddenly broken applications.
If there are programs out there which rely on d_ino then they are broken on cygwin right now and have been for some time. cgf -- Unsubscribe info: http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple Problem reports: http://cygwin.com/problems.html Documentation: http://cygwin.com/docs.html FAQ: http://cygwin.com/faq/