delorie.com/archives/browse.cgi | search |
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 |
Date: | Tue, 27 Mar 2001 19:19:38 -0500 |
From: | Christopher Faylor <cgf AT redhat DOT com> |
To: | cygwin-developers AT cygwin DOT com |
Subject: | Re: fifos and named pipes |
Message-ID: | <20010327191938.A12294@redhat.com> |
Reply-To: | cygwin-developers AT cygwin DOT com |
Mail-Followup-To: | cygwin-developers AT cygwin DOT com |
References: | <01ea01c0b712$868dfb00$0200a8c0 AT lifelesswks> |
Mime-Version: | 1.0 |
User-Agent: | Mutt/1.3.11i |
In-Reply-To: | <01ea01c0b712$868dfb00$0200a8c0@lifelesswks>; from robert.collins@itdomain.com.au on Wed, Mar 28, 2001 at 09:06:14AM +1000 |
On Wed, Mar 28, 2001 at 09:06:14AM +1000, Robert Collins wrote: >Just thought you'd like to know: named pipes under win32 (which I was >considering using for the NT implementations) don't have the same >semantics as under openBSD.... so I'm going with my roll-your-own >approach . What about regular pipes? I suggested that you could just use those along with some glue to duplicate handles between processes. How do the semantics differ? cgf
webmaster | delorie software privacy |
Copyright © 2019 by DJ Delorie | Updated Jul 2019 |