From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Ramsay Jones Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 4/4] t0060: verify that basename() and dirname() work as expected Date: Wed, 13 Jan 2016 16:46:51 +0000 Message-ID: <56967F7B.8080407@ramsayjones.plus.com> References: <7d73267984ab029df022477e341c536e111eafdd.1452585382.git.johannes.schindelin@gmx.de> <5695E4FB.2060705@web.de> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252 Content-Transfer-Encoding: QUOTED-PRINTABLE Cc: Junio C Hamano , git@vger.kernel.org, Eric Sunshine To: Johannes Schindelin , =?UTF-8?Q?Torsten_B=c3=b6gershausen?= X-From: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Wed Jan 13 17:47:08 2016 Return-path: Envelope-to: gcvg-git-2@plane.gmane.org Received: from vger.kernel.org ([209.132.180.67]) by plane.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1aJOZe-0000sW-2y for gcvg-git-2@plane.gmane.org; Wed, 13 Jan 2016 17:47:06 +0100 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1754966AbcAMQrA convert rfc822-to-quoted-printable (ORCPT ); Wed, 13 Jan 2016 11:47:00 -0500 Received: from avasout04.plus.net ([212.159.14.19]:36759 "EHLO avasout04.plus.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1754965AbcAMQq7 (ORCPT ); Wed, 13 Jan 2016 11:46:59 -0500 Received: from [10.0.2.15] ([46.208.159.221]) by avasout04 with smtp id 5Umx1s0024mu3xa01UmyV5; Wed, 13 Jan 2016 16:46:58 +0000 X-CM-Score: 0.00 X-CNFS-Analysis: v=2.1 cv=CvRCCSMD c=1 sm=1 tr=0 a=Sp5fw55EgyGSOjouSGNDoQ==:117 a=Sp5fw55EgyGSOjouSGNDoQ==:17 a=0Bzu9jTXAAAA:8 a=L9H7d07YOLsA:10 a=9cW_t1CCXrUA:10 a=s5jvgZ67dGcA:10 a=EBOSESyhAAAA:8 a=N659UExz7-8A:10 a=jmBSgutfuu9kwsSDzq0A:9 a=pILNOxqGKmIA:10 X-AUTH: ramsayjones@:2500 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:38.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/38.4.0 In-Reply-To: Sender: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org Archived-At: On 13/01/16 09:27, Johannes Schindelin wrote: > Hi Torsten, >=20 > On Wed, 13 Jan 2016, Torsten B=F6gershausen wrote: >=20 >> On 01/12/2016 08:57 AM, Johannes Schindelin wrote: >> >>> +static struct test_data basename_data[] =3D { >>> + /* --- POSIX type paths --- */ >>> + { NULL, "." }, >>> + { "", "." }, >>> + { ".", "." }, >>> + { "..", ".." }, >>> + { "/", "/" }, >>> +#if defined(__CYGWIN__) && !defined(NO_LIBGEN_H) >> Why the !defined(NO_LIBGEN_H) >> >> Shouldn't CYGWIN always behave the same ? >=20 > One would assume... Alas, it does not. Err, ... yes it does! :-P >=20 > I inherited the code in question and wondered the same. I opted for > keeping the code as a documentation of the differing behavior. Exactly. ATB, Ramsay Jones