Re: Implementing stat() with FindFirstFile()

From: Magnus Bäck <baeck@swipnet.se>
Date: Mar 31, 2009, 20:32 UTC
Message-ID: <20090331203248.GE27249@jeeves.jpl.local>
In-Reply-To: <alpine.DEB.1.00.0903310128410.10279@pacific.mpi-cbg.de>

On Tuesday, March 31, 2009 at 01:29 CEST,
     Johannes Schindelin <Johannes.Schindelin@gmx.de> wrote:

Show 16 quoted lines

> On Tue, 31 Mar 2009, Heiko Voigt wrote:
> 
> > On Mon, Mar 30, 2009 at 07:11:18AM +0200, Björn Steinbrink wrote:
> >
> > > Not official documentation, but at least from some MS guy it seems: 
> > > http://www.osronline.com/showThread.cfm?link=73086 (last message).
> > > 
> > > Apparently, it was in NT3.x, but they document only what's actually 
> > > defined in the header.
> > 
> > How about runtime checking? You could do GetProcAddress(...) and if
> > you don't get it use the old behaviour. I mean if it really is
> > faster why not let Users of recent systems benefit from it.
> 
> While my first reaction was negative, I have to admit that thinking
> about it longer, it does seem to make a whole lot of sense.

If anything worries me it's forward compatibility should Microsoft change the function signature. Backwards compatibility can always be guaranteed by using GetProcAddress(). Again, I would be very surprised but IF it could be quite fatal.

Anyway, we don't know for sure if it's faster or if it fixes the DST problem of FindFirstFile(). I'll write some code to try it out.

-- 
Magnus Bäck
baeck@swipnet.se