Re: Unreliable BFD caching heuristic

[Eli Zaretskii <eliz@gnu.org>]

> Date: Tue, 03 Dec 2013 22:00:31 -0200
> From: Luis Machado <lgustavo@codesourcery.com>
> CC: Tom Tromey <tromey@redhat.com>, gdb <gdb@sourceware.org>,  "Maciej W. Rozycki" <macro@codesourcery.com>
> 
> On 12/03/2013 09:33 PM, Petr Hluzín wrote:
> >
> > On 3 December 2013 16:27, Luis Machado <lgustavo@codesourcery.com
> > <mailto:lgustavo@codesourcery.com>> wrote:
> >  > I did an experiment with using the inode number in the cache check.
> > It seems
> >  > to work for the hosts that support that information. On Windows i
> > think we
> >  > fake inode numbers based on the file name and timestamp, so it could be a
> >  > simpler solution.
> >  >
> >  > Luis
> >
> > On Windows you can use GetFileInformationByHandle() function, see
> > http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/aa364952.aspx
> 
> Thanks, but i don't think we would like to have windows-specific calls 
> in such a generic portion of code.

I don't understand: if you want to use inode numbers on Posix systems,
which requires a Unix-specific call, then why not use
GetFileInformationByHandle, which gives the Windows equivalent of the
inode?  IOW, if you can have _real_ inodes on Windows, why risk the
fake ones?