delorie.com/archives/browse.cgi | search |
----- Original Message ----- From: "Christopher Faylor" <cgf AT redhat DOT com> To: <cygwin-developers AT cygwin DOT com> Sent: Monday, March 26, 2001 8:06 AM Subject: Re: setup will have to wait :[ > 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 > Didn't you and Corinna have huge problems with pipes on win95? If so I'd rather create a round wheel. Egor is suggesting the fifo's are many writers to many readers, with no cohesion.. I don't think that's the same as anonymous pipes... Rob
webmaster | delorie software privacy |
Copyright © 2019 by DJ Delorie | Updated Jul 2019 |