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 02:16:41 -0700 (PDT)
From: Matt <matt AT use DOT net>
X-Sender:  <matt AT cesium DOT clock DOT org>
To: cygdev <cygwin-developers AT cygwin DOT com>
Subject: Re: possible explanation for make hang
In-Reply-To: <20010916111330.A15312@cygbert.vinschen.de>
Message-ID: <Pine.NEB.4.30.0109160214480.3759-100000@cesium.clock.org>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII

On Sun, 16 Sep 2001, Corinna Vinschen wrote:

> > >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).
> >
> > 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.

I agree, especially since it's now been deprecated by Microsoft itself. I
didn't argue further because I assumed there is a business case for
continuing win95 support. Is there?

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