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
Date:	Wed, 14 Feb 2001 23:43:29 +0100 (MET)
From:	Jean Delvare <delvare AT ensicaen DOT ismra DOT fr>
To:	"Larry Hall (RFK Partners Inc)" <lhall AT rfk DOT com>
Cc:	cygwin AT sources DOT redhat DOT com
Subject:	Re: file descriptors opened as text files
In-Reply-To:	<5.0.2.1.0.20010214171434.00a8f6f0@pop.ma.ultranet.com>
Message-ID:	<Pine.SO4.4.05.10102142328050.22033-100000@e3000.ensicaen.ismra.fr>
MIME-Version:	1.0

> You proceed from a false supposition.
Looks like. Be sure I'm doing my best to understand, anyway.

> mount is a stand-alone utility.  It manipulates the way Cygwin sees the 
> file system.  It has nothing to do with bash.  Since your program relies
> on Cygwin and Cygwin interprets the file system through the existence or
> absence of mount points, your program treats files as Cywgin would treat
> the files, with or without bash.
That's a point I don't understand. What sense can mount have without
bash's unix-like environement ? Ok, it's not bash alone. It's everything
around also. But I see a big difference between running from bash with
everything around, which looks like unix, and running the compiled
application from Windows' Dos Box. The only common thing I see is
cygwin1.dll.

Regarding what you said before, I guess I'm wrong. Anyway, say I'll run
mount from my friend's Dos Command Box, who has no cygnus system
installes, what command am I supposed to type ? I don't see *where* I am
supposed to mount the drives. Do you mean thet mount also can set the
drives "mode" (text vs binary) without really mounting them ? 

> On Linux/UNIX, there's no difference between "binary" and "text" files, so
> the added flag is inconsequential.  However, it is standard so whether the
> docs mention it or not, its legal and will get you precisely what you want,
> in a portable way.
That may explain why I could not see the flag on linux's man pages. But
there is no man page for open(2) on Cygwin, right ? Then, where am I
supposed to find the value for this flag, if it ever exist ? I can't just
invent it, I guess it won't work ;)


> Happy to be of service.
Maybe I could save your time. I feel a bit guilty... Is there a kind of
reference manual for Cygwin that explain all this ? It doesn't sound that
evident to me.


-- 
       /~~       Jean "Khali" Delvare
  -----\_                        mail: delvare AT ensicaen DOT ismra DOT fr
 --------\                http://www.ensicaen.ismra.fr/~delvare/
---=ISMRA/- ____________________________________________________


--
Want to unsubscribe from this list?
Check out: http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple

- Raw text -