X-Recipient: archive-cygwin AT delorie DOT com X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Date: Tue, 17 Jun 2008 20:28:24 -0400 From: Christopher Faylor To: cygwin AT cygwin DOT com Subject: Re: Is There a Reason for Limited "/dev/com" to 16 Ports? Message-ID: <20080618002824.GA16859@ednor.casa.cgf.cx> Reply-To: cygwin AT cygwin DOT com Mail-Followup-To: cygwin AT cygwin DOT com References: <48581FBC DOT 7020801 AT gmail DOT com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <48581FBC.7020801@gmail.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.16 (2007-06-09) Mailing-List: contact cygwin-help AT cygwin DOT com; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: cygwin-owner AT cygwin DOT com Mail-Followup-To: cygwin AT cygwin DOT com Delivered-To: mailing list cygwin AT cygwin DOT com On Tue, Jun 17, 2008 at 04:34:04PM -0400, Paul Rogers wrote: >Should "devices.in" really have a limit of 16 "/dev/com" ports when the >"ttyS" ports are allowed up to 64 values (max of 63 since it is a >zero-based index)? You really should be using /dev/ttyS for linux compatibility. The fact that there is a /dev/com at all is really an artifact of the old device implementation. cgf -- Unsubscribe info: http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple Problem reports: http://cygwin.com/problems.html Documentation: http://cygwin.com/docs.html FAQ: http://cygwin.com/faq/