Mailing-List: contact cygwin-developers-help AT sourceware DOT cygnus DOT com; run by ezmlm List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , 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 X-Sender: To: Subject: Re: win95 support In-Reply-To: <20010916132322.B5329@redhat.com> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII 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