From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: David Kastrup Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: Re: Willing to debug bug #3542 (23.0.94; File access via UNC path slow again under Windows) Date: Wed, 15 Jul 2009 11:19:18 +0200 Organization: Organization?!? Message-ID: <87tz1ei9rd.fsf@lola.goethe.zz> References: <7dbe73ed0907051401o26903ca3t9a67060f3a3417ad@mail.gmail.com> <7dbe73ed0907060038w53699f77ie742996955ae8118@mail.gmail.com> <838wj11sz4.fsf@gnu.org> <83my7fz09s.fsf@gnu.org> <7dbe73ed0907081347q12dfd1a2lbbff915c49362f75@mail.gmail.com> <4A55D68D.8050407@gnu.org> <7dbe73ed0907090453s3e125b4ar142b90a268b105e2@mail.gmail.com> <7DAFC004A33C486A9E29A59689E7F02E@us.oracle.com> <4A5619F5.8010008@gnu.org> <8363e1zoak.fsf@gnu.org> <83hbxjrmue.fsf@gnu.org> <83ws6cqudb.fsf@gnu.org> <83tz1gqr33.fsf@gnu.org> <83prc4q7ef.fsf@gnu.org> <83ocrnqdqa.fsf@gnu.org> <58260.130.55.118.19.1247599938.squirrel@webmail.lanl.gov> NNTP-Posting-Host: lo.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Trace: ger.gmane.org 1247649597 2309 80.91.229.12 (15 Jul 2009 09:19:57 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@ger.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Wed, 15 Jul 2009 09:19:57 +0000 (UTC) To: emacs-devel@gnu.org Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Wed Jul 15 11:19:50 2009 Return-path: Envelope-to: ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org Original-Received: from lists.gnu.org ([199.232.76.165]) by lo.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.50) id 1MR0eS-0004T2-Kp for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Wed, 15 Jul 2009 11:19:50 +0200 Original-Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:59555 helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1MR0eR-0003Hr-Pp for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Wed, 15 Jul 2009 05:19:47 -0400 Original-Received: from mailman by lists.gnu.org with tmda-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1MR0eI-0003EU-Jz for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Wed, 15 Jul 2009 05:19:38 -0400 Original-Received: from exim by lists.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1MR0eD-000365-Js for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Wed, 15 Jul 2009 05:19:37 -0400 Original-Received: from [199.232.76.173] (port=37670 helo=monty-python.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1MR0eD-00035d-Es for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Wed, 15 Jul 2009 05:19:33 -0400 Original-Received: from main.gmane.org ([80.91.229.2]:39079 helo=ciao.gmane.org) by monty-python.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS-1.0:RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA1:32) (Exim 4.60) (envelope-from ) id 1MR0eC-0007dT-Sj for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Wed, 15 Jul 2009 05:19:33 -0400 Original-Received: from list by ciao.gmane.org with local (Exim 4.43) id 1MR0eA-0003fk-Ss for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Wed, 15 Jul 2009 09:19:30 +0000 Original-Received: from p5b2c2f6a.dip.t-dialin.net ([91.44.47.106]) by main.gmane.org with esmtp (Gmexim 0.1 (Debian)) id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00 for ; Wed, 15 Jul 2009 09:19:30 +0000 Original-Received: from dak by p5b2c2f6a.dip.t-dialin.net with local (Gmexim 0.1 (Debian)) id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00 for ; Wed, 15 Jul 2009 09:19:30 +0000 X-Injected-Via-Gmane: http://gmane.org/ Original-Lines: 21 Original-X-Complaints-To: usenet@ger.gmane.org X-Gmane-NNTP-Posting-Host: p5b2c2f6a.dip.t-dialin.net X-Face: 2FEFf>]>q>2iw=B6, xrUubRI>pR&Ml9=ao@P@i)L:\urd*t9M~y1^:+Y]'C0~{mAl`oQuAl \!3KEIp?*w`|bL5qr,H)LFO6Q=qx~iH4DN; i"; /yuIsqbLLCh/!U#X[S~(5eZ41to5f%E@'ELIi$t^ Vc\LWP@J5p^rst0+('>Er0=^1{]M9!p?&:\z]|;&=NP3AhB!B_bi^]Pfkw User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/23.1.50 (gnu/linux) Cancel-Lock: sha1:UmrbAiAo//hiV9IhltafRXuEmSY= X-detected-operating-system: by monty-python.gnu.org: GNU/Linux 2.6, seldom 2.4 (older, 4) X-BeenThere: emacs-devel@gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: "Emacs development discussions." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Original-Sender: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Errors-To: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Xref: news.gmane.org gmane.emacs.devel:112482 Archived-At: "Davis Herring" writes: >> That's not what I meant. What I meant is the problem that could >> happen if encoded_dir's value was foo^@bar, and there was also a >> directory called "foo". Won't we then opendir "foo"? > > Of course. But is the equivalence between "foo" and "foo^@bar" > fundamentally worse than the (almost: consider symlinks) equivalence > between "foo" and "foo/"? Maybe it just doesn't matter much. > >> And what if opendir was replaced by unlink? > > Nothing. You can't unlink directories. ;) As root under Solaris, you can. This has been a nasty cause of surprise for decades. I can't vouch that it has not changed in _very_ recent years, but there certainly will systems be around where this is the case. -- David Kastrup