This is the mail archive of the cygwin@sources.redhat.com mailing list for the Cygwin project.


Index Nav: [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav: [Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]

Re: Optimizing away "ReadFile" calls when Make calls stat()


On Thu, Feb 15, 2001 at 04:09:46PM -0500, Larry Hall (RFK Partners, Inc) wrote:
>At 02:47 PM 2/15/2001, Warren Young wrote:
>>Egor Duda wrote:
>> > 
>> > the  only problem with this approach i can see is that if we introduce
>> > new  API  and applications start to use it we became "bound" to it and
>> > it'll  be  not too easy to deprecate ad remove it afterwards. OTOH, we
>> > can  always  make stat_lite() a simple wrapper to stat() if the latter
>> > become fast enough.
>>
>>I like the idea of stat_lite(), and I don't see a reason to ever
>>deprecate it: it's simply a fact that stat() is a bad interface to Win32
>>functionality.  It exposes a Unix filesystem's inode element, and
>>therefore makes programs dependent on it.  To eliminate the need for a
>>stat_lite(), you'd have to redesign Win32, which is out of our hands.
>>
>>Here's how I think stat_lite() should be designed: give it one extra
>>parameter, a bitfield, over regular stat().  This declares what fields
>>are important to the caller.  
>>
>>All the code in the DLL's current stat() implementation would move to
>>stat_lite().  Then add 'if's checking the bitfield flags before making
>>Win32 calls to look up field values.  The DLL's stat() implementation
>>then becomes a wrapper around stat_lite(): it just sets all the bitfield
>>flags, telling it to look up every field value.
>>
>>If this design is used, stat_lite() would be a misleading name.  How
>>about stat_select(), since it would behave like select(2)?
>>
>>Example code:
>>
>>         struct stat st;
>>         stat_select("foo", &st, ST_MODE | ST_MTIME);
>>
>>Cygwin.DLL:
>>         int stat(const char* file, struct stat* pst) 
>>         {
>>                 return stat_select(file, pst, 0xFFFFFFFF);
>>         }
>
>
>
>Sure, this is an idea for new, Cygwin specific code.  I'm not quite 
>sure why someone who was writing new code (or changing old) wouldn't just
>use Win32 APIs to accomplish the required task though.  I mean, so long as 
>the change results in non-portable code, why not pick the less specific 
>Win32 APIs (over some Cygwin-specific alternative)?  Still, if you want to 
>implement such a patch and submit it, I'm sure it will get some thoughtful 
>consideration.

Egor has already submitted a patch like this and I've been mulling it
over for... a year maybe?

I think I can actually change Cygwin to do the right thing here without
any new API changes.

Stay tuned.

cgf

--
Want to unsubscribe from this list?
Check out: http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple


Index Nav: [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav: [Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]