Mailing-List:	contact cygwin-developers-help AT sourceware DOT cygnus DOT com; run by ezmlm
List-Subscribe:	<mailto:cygwin-developers-subscribe AT sources DOT redhat DOT com>
List-Archive:	<http://sources.redhat.com/ml/cygwin-developers/>
List-Post:	<mailto:cygwin-developers AT sources DOT redhat DOT com>
List-Help:	<mailto:cygwin-developers-help AT sources DOT redhat DOT com>, <http://sources.redhat.com/ml/#faqs>
Sender:	cygwin-developers-owner AT sources DOT redhat DOT com
Delivered-To:	mailing list cygwin-developers AT sources DOT redhat DOT com
Message-ID:	<012801c0b577$f8663f40$0200a8c0@lifelesswks>
From:	"Robert Collins" <robert DOT collins AT itdomain DOT com DOT au>
To:	<cygwin-developers AT cygwin DOT com>
References:	<001b01c0b397$2d1ca720$0200a8c0 AT lifelesswks> <1783665564 DOT 20010323155742 AT logos-m DOT ru> <000501c0b3e9$7fa3d890$0200a8c0 AT lifelesswks> <183264218826 DOT 20010325190658 AT logos-m DOT ru> <005b01c0b575$112ff2d0$0200a8c0 AT lifelesswks> <20010325165305 DOT A32188 AT redhat DOT com> <010c01c0b576$a93cdb00$0200a8c0 AT lifelesswks> <20010325170638 DOT A897 AT redhat DOT com>
Subject:	Re: setup will have to wait :[
Date:	Mon, 26 Mar 2001 08:07:22 +1000
MIME-Version:	1.0
X-Priority:	3
X-MSMail-Priority:	Normal
X-Mailer:	Microsoft Outlook Express 5.50.4133.2400
X-MimeOLE:	Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4133.2400
X-OriginalArrivalTime:	25 Mar 2001 22:02:05.0498 (UTC) FILETIME=[3A9569A0:01C0B577]

----- 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

- Raw text -