X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Date: Sat, 10 Jun 2006 12:52:06 -0400 From: Christopher Faylor To: cygwin@cygwin.com Subject: Re: Why is Cygwin1.dll monolithic? Message-ID: <20060610165206.GD13544@trixie.casa.cgf.cx> Reply-To: cygwin@cygwin.com Mail-Followup-To: cygwin@cygwin.com References: <448A9EB0.4050404@sh.cvut.cz> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <448A9EB0.4050404@sh.cvut.cz> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.11 Mailing-List: contact cygwin-help@cygwin.com; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: cygwin-owner@cygwin.com Mail-Followup-To: cygwin@cygwin.com Delivered-To: mailing list cygwin@cygwin.com On Sat, Jun 10, 2006 at 12:28:00PM +0200, V??clav Haisman wrote: >Today I woke up and one of the first things that came on my mind was >this: Why isn't Cygwin1.dll devided to the "kernel" and separate C library? Maybe you should outline the benefits of such a plan since I can only see drawbacks. Both DLLs would have to be loaded by every application anyway. That means two separate directory lookups. And, the "separate C library" would suffer from dll load-time issues with accessing data and functions, i.e., it would be slower than the current way of doing things. And, then, there would be the "It says cyglibc.dll not found. Why it not there?" issues that are sure to crop up. So, other than the esoteric issue of isolating things into separate regions for maintenance sake, I don't see any end-user benefits. cgf -- Unsubscribe info: http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple Problem reports: http://cygwin.com/problems.html Documentation: http://cygwin.com/docs.html FAQ: http://cygwin.com/faq/