delorie.com/archives/browse.cgi | search |
On Mon, Mar 26, 2001 at 07:57:59AM +1000, Robert Collins wrote: >> Cygwin doesn't implement named pipes. Isn't a fifo == a named pipe >> anyway? > >Yes. I'm looking into the behaviour in more detail defore I cut code, >but yes. My planned implementation is a shared memory region that lists >the named pipes open on the system (maintained automagically via any >open cygwin process), a couple of waitable objects (probably 1 semaphore >and 1 event) per open fifo, and finally a (pick a good buffer size) >shared memory region for doing the actual data transfer. How about just using actual pipes? You could duplicate handles between processes. I don't know if pipe semantics are the same as fifos but I suspect that they are. cgf
webmaster | delorie software privacy |
Copyright © 2019 by DJ Delorie | Updated Jul 2019 |