Re: [gccsdk] GCC 4.7.4 Rel 1 Dev 2014-01-08: Text file execute permission bit

On 08/03/2014 17:33, John Tytgat wrote:
> In message <mpro.n24muc00igub602k0@wingsandbeaks.org.uk.invalid>
> Jeremy Nicoll - ml roinfo <jn.ml.roi.39@wingsandbeaks.org.uk> wrote:
>
>> John Tytgat <John.Tytgat@aaug.net> wrote:
>>
>>> I think it would be better to derive this from RISC OS filetype, i.e.
>>> test on Obey, Absolute, ELF, Module, Utility (any others ?).
>> If you allowed Obey, why not BASIC? And then, why not Lua, REXX, Python etc
>> - how would the code know whether to treat an arbitrary filetype as
>> executable?
> I currently can only come up with the pragmatic approach of using a set
> of filetypes to fake the execute permission bits. If we would go for it,
> a short list of filetypes is preferred so trying to limit it to those
> cases where it really matters. I think that's filetypes
> representing/containing ARM code but I admit that's very arbitrary. Your
> Obey filetype challenge is a good one, I'm not sure whether I can really
> justify that.
>
> Duncan, do you actually have usecases where the execute permission bits
> matter ? Is this an issue for a certain port ? Or is this just found by
> your testing ?

No, I have nothing where it matters - I just observed the change in some
of my test cases.

If the execute permission bit is going to be based on filetypes, then
just using filetypes that have ARM code has the advantage that it's a
relatively small (unambiguous?) set, and unlikely to change much in the
future.

Regards
Duncan




_______________________________________________
GCCSDK mailing list gcc@gccsdk.riscos.info
Bugzilla: http://www.riscos.info/bugzilla/index.cgi
List Info: http://www.riscos.info/mailman/listinfo/gcc
Main Page: http://www.riscos.info/index.php/GCCSDK