From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 30256 invoked by alias); 15 Jun 2011 04:25:15 -0000 Received: (qmail 30221 invoked by uid 22791); 15 Jun 2011 04:25:11 -0000 X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-2.0 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00 X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from rock.gnat.com (HELO rock.gnat.com) (205.232.38.15) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.43rc1) with ESMTP; Wed, 15 Jun 2011 04:24:57 +0000 Received: from localhost (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by filtered-rock.gnat.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A237D2BB233; Wed, 15 Jun 2011 00:24:56 -0400 (EDT) Received: from rock.gnat.com ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (rock.gnat.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with LMTP id LVRlbsvuRueF; Wed, 15 Jun 2011 00:24:56 -0400 (EDT) Received: from joel.gnat.com (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by rock.gnat.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4FD0C2BB231; Wed, 15 Jun 2011 00:24:56 -0400 (EDT) Received: by joel.gnat.com (Postfix, from userid 1000) id 52EC5145615; Tue, 14 Jun 2011 21:24:49 -0700 (PDT) Date: Wed, 15 Jun 2011 08:14:00 -0000 From: Joel Brobecker To: DJ Delorie Cc: Andrew Pinski , gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org, gdb-patches@sourceware.org Subject: Re: [RFA/libiberty] Darwin has case-insensitive filesystems Message-ID: <20110615042449.GB5930@adacore.com> References: <1308087182-26577-1-git-send-email-brobecker@adacore.com> <201106142201.p5EM1vOd006127@greed.delorie.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <201106142201.p5EM1vOd006127@greed.delorie.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.20 (2009-06-14) Mailing-List: contact gcc-patches-help@gcc.gnu.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Id: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: Sender: gcc-patches-owner@gcc.gnu.org X-SW-Source: 2011-06/txt/msg01135.txt.bz2 > There's a difference between case preserving and case sensitive, > though, and we really don't have a portable way to detect > case-sensitivity on a per-directory basis, sow how can we do better? That's roughly my thoughts on this issue. It's true that this property is not an OS property, and we could try devising some ways to test it in various ways. But I think that the current solution is good enough for practical purposes. A better solution is, in my opinion, more effort than it is worth. -- Joel