Mailing-List:	contact cygwin-help AT sourceware DOT cygnus DOT com; run by ezmlm
List-Subscribe:	<mailto:cygwin-subscribe AT sources DOT redhat DOT com>
List-Archive:	<http://sources.redhat.com/ml/cygwin/>
List-Post:	<mailto:cygwin AT sources DOT redhat DOT com>
List-Help:	<mailto:cygwin-help AT sources DOT redhat DOT com>, <http://sources.redhat.com/ml/#faqs>
Sender:	cygwin-owner AT sources DOT redhat DOT com
Delivered-To:	mailing list cygwin AT sources DOT redhat DOT com
Message-ID:	<F10D23B02E54D011A0AB0020AF9CEFE999EE80@lynx.ceddec.com>
From:	"Town, Brad" <btown AT ceddec DOT com>
To:	"'cygwin AT cygwin DOT com'" <cygwin AT cygwin DOT com>
Subject:	RE: O_NONBLOCK serial I/O blocks on 95, OK on NT
Date:	Thu, 7 Dec 2000 09:35:51 -0500
MIME-Version:	1.0
X-Mailer:	Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19)

I now remember that *my* errors were due to passing NULL for some values
that should be ignored.  Under NT/2000, that worked, but under 95, they'd
fail with ERROR_INVALID_PARAMETER.  Even though the parameters should have
been ignored, I still had to provide a valid pointer.  Since Cygwin's serial
I/O works at all under Win9x, then that's almost certainly not the problem.

I wouldn't count on an upgrade doing much for this problem.

Bruce Edge [mailto:bedge AT sattel DOT com] wrote:
> "Town, Brad" wrote:
> > 
> > Microsoft's overlapped I/O for serial ports is fully 
> implemented, though
> > it's just different enough to drive you crazy.  I've had 
> times when serial
> > I/O code (straight Win32 API stuff) would work perfectly 
> under NT/2000, but
> > would fail under Win9x because some parameters were 
> considered invalid.  I
> > wish I could remember the details.
> 
> So do I :-)
> 
> Does anyone know if anything changed WRT serial I/O on 98 or ME?
> I have to support _one_ of the crappy OSs. I was wondering if 
> an upgrade would
> be worth it.

--
Want to unsubscribe from this list?
Send a message to cygwin-unsubscribe AT sourceware DOT cygnus DOT com

- Raw text -