On Feb 22 13:55, Igor Peshansky wrote: > On Fri, 17 Feb 2006, Igor Peshansky wrote: > > On Fri, 17 Feb 2006, Corinna Vinschen wrote: > > > On Feb 16 12:26, Igor Peshansky wrote: > > > > On Thu, 16 Feb 2006, Corinna Vinschen wrote: > > > > > - Most of your patch should go into path.cc so it can be reused, > > > > > for instance in strace. > > > > > > > > Agreed -- that's why I put that TODO in there. :-) Should I move it > > > > in the next iteration of the patch? > > > > > > Please move it now. I don't think it's non-trivial enough to justify > > > multiple iterations. > > > > Whoops. Misspoke. I meant "incarnation". Never mind, I'll just do it. > > :-) Expect a new patch today. > > I guess "today" is a stretchable concept. :-) In any case, here's a new > patch. Moving things into path.cc turned out to be indeed non-trivial, > since the new functionality was using static functions in cygcheck.cc > which now needed to be moved out into a separate file. I don't expect > this to be applied right away (hence no ChangeLog), but is this along the > lines of what you were expecting?
Yes, this looks generally ok to me. I didn't *test* your patch, but from the look of it, it seems fine, with one exception: I don't see a reason to introduce a new fileutil.cc file. Please move the functions into path.cc, add the extern declarations to path.h (so you can drop them from cygcheck.cc), and revert the Makefile changes. Then, together with a neat ChangeLog entry, we're pratically done :-) Thanks for doing this, btw. I really appreciate it. Corinna -- Corinna Vinschen Please, send mails regarding Cygwin to Cygwin Project Co-Leader cygwin AT cygwin DOT com Red Hat
