Mailing-List:	contact cygwin-help AT cygwin DOT com; run by ezmlm
List-Subscribe:	<mailto:cygwin-subscribe AT cygwin DOT com>
List-Archive:	<http://sources.redhat.com/ml/cygwin/>
List-Post:	<mailto:cygwin AT cygwin DOT com>
List-Help:	<mailto:cygwin-help AT cygwin DOT com>, <http://sources.redhat.com/ml/#faqs>
Sender:	cygwin-owner AT cygwin DOT com
Mail-Followup-To:	cygwin AT cygwin DOT com
Delivered-To:	mailing list cygwin AT cygwin DOT com
X-Info:	This message was accepted for relay by
	smtp03.mrf.mail.rcn.net as the sender used SMTP authentication
X-Trace:	UmFuZG9tSVZiVsQr5tokNYj7heCTQw+hkFbjND+FXq4a4nCRwgsOIQQPSqm/cUl9
Message-ID:	<3EF20733.2080304@cygwin.com>
Date:	Thu, 19 Jun 2003 14:55:47 -0400
From:	Larry Hall <cygwin-lh AT cygwin DOT com>
Reply-To:	cygwin AT cygwin DOT com
User-Agent:	Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.0; en-US; rv:1.4) Gecko/20030529
X-Accept-Language:	en-us, en
MIME-Version:	1.0
To:	Mark Paulus <mark DOT paulus AT mci DOT com>
CC:	"cygwin AT cygwin DOT com" <cygwin AT cygwin DOT com>
Subject:	Re: cygipc semaphores not persistent?
References:	<0HGQ00JM8RU99X AT pmismtp01 DOT wcomnet DOT com>
In-Reply-To:	<0HGQ00JM8RU99X@pmismtp01.wcomnet.com>

No that's right.  The goal was to move the functionality of cygipc into
the Cygwin DLL itself and expand on it.  However, this work is incomplete.
But cygipc and the work to add IPC functionality to the Cygwin DLL are
mutually exclusive pieces of functionality.  So there's nothing that's
happened that would affect the way that cygipc should function in the
meantime.

Larry


Mark Paulus wrote:

> Are you running the ipcdaemon process?  At one time
> the cygipc libraries required the ipcdaemon process
> to manage the global objects.  I thought I read something
> that the ipc-daemon is going away, and being incorporated
> into the cygwin architecture, but I did not gather that it had
> happened yet.  That may be a misunderstanding on my
> part however.
> 
> On Thu, 19 Jun 2003 11:49:30 -0400, Joe Buehler wrote:
> 
> 
>>I am attempting to use cygipc for its semaphore functionality
>>in porting some existing UNIX code.
>>
>>It would appear that semaphores are not persistent?
>>
>>The code depends on the UNIX semantic of a semaphore being a global
>>system object that exists regardless of whether any processes are
>>currently using it.
>>
>>I have processes coming and going, using the semaphore to mediate
>>access to a disk-based queue.  I have been debugging the code,
>>and it appears that the semaphore is destroyed when no process has
>>it open?
>>-- 
>>Joe Buehler
>>


--
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/

- Raw text -