X-Recipient:	archive-cygwin AT delorie DOT com
X-SWARE-Spam-Status:	No, hits=-1.5 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE,TW_CG,UNPARSEABLE_RELAY
X-Spam-Check-By:	sourceware.org
X-Yahoo-SMTP:	jenXL62swBAWhMTL3wnej93oaS0ClBQOAKs8jbEbx_o-
Date:	Thu, 31 Mar 2011 17:57:05 -0400
From:	Christopher Faylor <cgf-use-the-mailinglist-please AT cygwin DOT com>
To:	cygwin AT cygwin DOT com
Subject:	Re: NT4?
Message-ID:	<20110331215705.GA5149@ednor.casa.cgf.cx>
Reply-To:	cygwin AT cygwin DOT com
Mail-Followup-To:	cygwin AT cygwin DOT com
References:	<20110331203416 DOT GB2606 AT calimero DOT vinschen DOT de> <COL102-W1127E01ADC7B56DB2A8A8BB5BF0 AT phx DOT gbl> <20110331205810 DOT GA17218 AT trixie DOT casa DOT cgf DOT cx> <COL102-W40135A0DE0F7D6B160FDDEB5BF0 AT phx DOT gbl>
MIME-Version:	1.0
In-Reply-To:	<COL102-W40135A0DE0F7D6B160FDDEB5BF0@phx.gbl>
User-Agent:	Mutt/1.5.20 (2009-06-14)
Mailing-List:	contact cygwin-help AT cygwin DOT com; run by ezmlm
List-Id:	<cygwin.cygwin.com>
List-Unsubscribe:	<mailto:cygwin-unsubscribe-archive-cygwin=delorie DOT com AT cygwin DOT com>
List-Subscribe:	<mailto:cygwin-subscribe AT cygwin DOT com>
List-Archive:	<http://sourceware.org/ml/cygwin/>
List-Post:	<mailto:cygwin AT cygwin DOT com>
List-Help:	<mailto:cygwin-help AT cygwin DOT com>, <http://sourceware.org/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

On Thu, Mar 31, 2011 at 02:32:58PM -0700, Karl M wrote:
>
>> Date: Thu, 31 Mar 2011 16:58:10 -0400
>> From: cgf
>> Subject: Re: NT4?
>>
>> On Thu, Mar 31, 2011 at 01:47:43PM -0700, Karl M wrote:
>> >
>> >At some point, would there be any (significant) performance advantage to
>> >moving (some of the) platform differences to compile time? (Not for all of
>> >the applications, just for the Cygwin DLL and perhaps cygserver?
>>
>> You mean something like:
>>
>> gcc -DALLOW_NT4 something-random-program.c
>>
>> There would be no benefit whatsoever to allowing something like that since
>> there would still have to be accommodations in cygwin to handle it the
>> antique platform.
>>
>No, not that at all. I was asking about platform specific Cygwin DLL builds.

Oh, in that case:  Same answer.  We're trying to eliminate head standing in
the code, not make more work for ourselves by introducing different variants
of cygwin1.dll.

cgf

--
Problem reports:       http://cygwin.com/problems.html
FAQ:                   http://cygwin.com/faq/
Documentation:         http://cygwin.com/docs.html
Unsubscribe info:      http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple

- Raw text -