On Jan 11 07:47, Eric Blake wrote: > According to Corinna Vinschen on 1/11/2009 2:16 AM: > > Are you proposing that Cygwin should change setting errno from ENOSHARE > > to ENOENT? ENOSHARE is only set in one single instance and is only > > explicitly requested in another. AFAICS, dropping ENOSHARE entirely > > would only simplify the code and should have no negative consequences > > (knock on wood here). > > Changing from ENOSHARE to ENOENT would certainly be more POSIX-compliant - > the error is conveying the information that a path does not exist. Also, > if you put some historical context on the problem, ENOSHARE predates the > implementation of the // namespace. Back when //server did not represent > a valid path name, it made sense to have a different error for > //nosuch/share seeing as how //nosuch could never resolve on its own. But > now that //nosuch can potentially resolve, it makes sense to treat it like > any other path name that can potentially resolve, by returning ENOENT.
That makes sense. I changed ENOSHARE to ENOENT throughout. Corinna -- Corinna Vinschen Please, send mails regarding Cygwin to Cygwin Project Co-Leader cygwin AT cygwin DOT com Red Hat -- 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/