Mail Archives: cygwin-developers/2001/09/16/05:13:36
On Sun, Sep 16, 2001 at 02:01:18AM -0400, Christopher Faylor wrote:
> On Sat, Sep 15, 2001 at 10:58:30PM -0700, Matt wrote:
> >On Sun, 16 Sep 2001, Christopher Faylor wrote:
> >
> >> On Sun, Sep 16, 2001 at 03:09:29PM +1000, Robert Collins wrote:
> >
> >> You can't normally use WFMO for file handles. I actually tried this an
> >> hour or so ago to see if maybe it actually worked on Windows 95. It
> >> doesn't.
> >
> >Out of curiosity, are you testing on Win95 950, 950a, or 950b? I remember
> >when I did QA, some API calls that did not work as documented on 950/950a
> >would work fine on 950b. If you can't find 950b specifically, testing on
> >win98 is almost equivelant (950b has the win98 "kernel", for the
> >mostpart).
> >
> >If you don't have 950b or win98 handy, I can try an example test
> >case if you have one compiled or in source.
>
> It doesn't really matter. If it doesn't work on one system, it isn't
> useful.
IMO, it does matter. We have the same problem of non-interuptible IO
on sockets. It's solved in net.cc by using the `CancelIO' call which
doesn't exist in 95.
My humbly opinion: 95 is really, really old now. It has been
substituted by two following OSes in the meantime and the third
is coming soon. Even Microsoft has canceled support for 95 and
I can understand them. If 95 doesn't work in a specific part of
Cygwin which works fine in 98/ME/NT/W2K/XP, we shouldn't care
anymore. We just stop to create workarounds which are really only
for 95.
Corinna
--
Corinna Vinschen Please, send mails regarding Cygwin to
Cygwin Developer mailto:cygwin AT cygwin DOT com
Red Hat, Inc.
- Raw text -