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:	Tue, 27 Mar 2001 19:19:38 -0500
From:	Christopher Faylor <cgf AT redhat DOT com>
To:	cygwin-developers AT cygwin DOT com
Subject:	Re: fifos and named pipes
Message-ID:	<20010327191938.A12294@redhat.com>
Reply-To:	cygwin-developers AT cygwin DOT com
Mail-Followup-To:	cygwin-developers AT cygwin DOT com
References:	<01ea01c0b712$868dfb00$0200a8c0 AT lifelesswks>
Mime-Version:	1.0
User-Agent:	Mutt/1.3.11i
In-Reply-To:	<01ea01c0b712$868dfb00$0200a8c0@lifelesswks>; from robert.collins@itdomain.com.au on Wed, Mar 28, 2001 at 09:06:14AM +1000

On Wed, Mar 28, 2001 at 09:06:14AM +1000, Robert Collins wrote:
>Just thought you'd like to know: named pipes under win32 (which I was
>considering using for the NT implementations) don't have the same
>semantics as under openBSD.... so I'm going with my roll-your-own
>approach .

What about regular pipes?  I suggested that you could just use those
along with some glue to duplicate handles between processes.

How do the semantics differ?

cgf

- Raw text -