Mailing-List:	contact cygwin-help AT sourceware DOT cygnus DOT com; run by ezmlm
Sender:	cygwin-owner AT sourceware DOT cygnus DOT com
Delivered-To:	mailing list cygwin AT sourceware DOT cygnus DOT com
Message-ID:	<0a2201be6a32$b6fd1160$e63d2509@jonpryor.raleigh.ibm.com>
From:	"Jonathan Pryor" <jonpryor AT vt DOT edu>
To:	<cygwin AT sourceware DOT cygnus DOT com>
Subject:	Re: Compiled executable differences between 9x and NT
Date:	Tue, 9 Mar 1999 08:42:15 -0500
MIME-Version:	1.0
X-Priority:	3
X-MSMail-Priority:	Normal
X-Mailer:	Microsoft Outlook Express 4.72.3110.5
X-MimeOLE:	Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.3110.3

<inline>
-----Original Message-----
From: N8TM AT aol DOT com <N8TM AT aol DOT com>
To: jonpryor <jonpryor>; cygwin AT sourceware DOT cygnus DOT com
<cygwin AT sourceware DOT cygnus DOT com>
Date: Monday, March 08, 1999 9:37 PM
Subject: Re: Compiled executable differences between 9x and NT


>In a message dated 3/8/99 6:23:52 AM Pacific Standard Time, jonpryor AT vt DOT edu
>writes:
>
><< What are the *exact* differences between 95 and NT,
> as far as the cygwin environment and compiler are
> concerned? >>
>
>I imagine many of them are dependent on proprietary M$ information.

Differences between 95 and NT would be proprietary information.
I fail to see why differences in the behavior of cygwin-compiled
executables would be Microsoft proprietary, though...  At the very
least, I would expect someone to have an idea of what (programs,
operations, commands, source code, etc.), in general, tends to
"break" 95 while working fine under NT.

><<Under 95, it's currently causing
>a "blue screen">>
>
>There's one of these when expect crashes in the egcs testsuite on W95.  It
>doesn't get that far under NT.

What causes the crash in the egcs testsuite?  Which test?  Why does
it break (if known)?

><<Is there anything that is known to break 95 while
>working under NT?>>
>
>Of course, but I haven't seen any official list.  One of them is attempting
to
>build egcs from patch files.  The snapshot releases have made progress on
the
>vfork failures of the original b20.1 under W95.  There are also things
which
>work better under W95 than NT.  One of them is catching success/failure
>returns from gcc/g++/g77 compiled a.exe.

I suppose a better question would be: What C/C++ source has a
tendancy of segfaulting under 95, but working fine under NT?

I'd like to narrow down whether this is a problem with the
runtime under 95, or a problem with the OS itself.  Either way,
if I know what source is "unsafe" under 95, I can try to re-write
my code to work safely under 95 as well as NT.  But until I know
what issues to look out for, re-writing isn't an issue.

Thanks,
- Jon


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

- Raw text -