Mailing-List:	contact cygwin-developers-help AT sourceware DOT cygnus DOT com; run by ezmlm
List-Subscribe:	<mailto:cygwin-developers-subscribe AT sources DOT redhat DOT com>
List-Archive:	<http://sources.redhat.com/ml/cygwin-developers/>
List-Post:	<mailto:cygwin-developers AT sources DOT redhat DOT com>
List-Help:	<mailto:cygwin-developers-help AT sources DOT redhat DOT com>, <http://sources.redhat.com/ml/#faqs>
Sender:	cygwin-developers-owner AT sources DOT redhat DOT com
Delivered-To:	mailing list cygwin-developers AT sources DOT redhat DOT com
Date:	Sun, 16 Sep 2001 12:25:06 -0700 (PDT)
From:	Matt <matt AT use DOT net>
X-Sender:	<matt AT cesium DOT clock DOT org>
To:	<cygwin-developers AT cygwin DOT com>
Subject:	Re: win95 support
In-Reply-To:	<20010916132322.B5329@redhat.com>
Message-ID:	<Pine.NEB.4.30.0109161220360.3759-100000@cesium.clock.org>
MIME-Version:	1.0

On Sun, 16 Sep 2001, Christopher Faylor wrote:

> There is one specific issue with PeekNamedPipe not detecting EOF that
> exists on Windows 95 -> Windows ME.  I was hoping that maybe if I could
> do a WFSO on a pipe on these platforms that I could possibly work around
> this problem.  That was not the case.
>
> I guess it is possible that this would work on something > Windows 95.
> I didn't test that.  I tend to doubt that Microsoft would make things
> less compliant with their documentation as they "improved" the
> OS so I didn't think it was worth tracking down.

The [comaptibility] portion of one of the INI files is enormous in win98,
it serves to make certain API calls behave in a bug-compatible way with
the original win95. If you can give me a test program, I would be more
than happy to test it on win98 and get back to the list ASAP.


> So, to reiterate, the issue of dropping Windows 95 does not solve the
> pipe problem in any way.

If WFSO works as documented (or better) in win98 it still wouldn't help?
Sorry for my confusion, was up slaying bugs until 4am last night. :)


--
http://www.clock.org/~matt

- Raw text -