Date: Thu, 21 Feb 2008 23:14:20 +0100
From: Samuel Thibault <samuel.thibault@ens-lyon.org>
To: cygwin@cygwin.com
Subject: Re: ioperm() with ports above 0x3ff
Message-ID: <20080221221420.GC19778@implementation>
Mail-Followup-To: cygwin@cygwin.com
References: <loom.20080218T210001-512@post.gmane.org> <20080221204618.GB10976@implementation> <200802220850.37455.daniel@nuix.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
In-Reply-To: <200802220850.37455.daniel@nuix.com>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.12-2006-07-14
Mailing-List: contact cygwin-help@cygwin.com; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
Sender: cygwin-owner@cygwin.com
Mail-Followup-To: cygwin@cygwin.com

Daniel Noll, le Fri 22 Feb 2008 08:50:37 +1100, a écrit :
> On Friday 22 February 2008 07:46:18 Samuel Thibault wrote:
> > Yes: on Linux ioperm doesn't work above 0x400.  On Linux, so as to
> > access ports above 0x400 you need to use iopl(), that's why ioperm in
> > cygwin does this.  Now, allowing >= 0x400 would be possible in cygwin's
> > ioperm, but then you'd get problems when using the code on Linux...  The
> > truly proper way is really to use iopl().
> 
> On the other hand the iopl() man page specifically says that it shouldn't be 
> used in processes intended to be portable. ;-D

To non-Linux environments, yes, but Cygwin is meant to be
Linux-compatible.

Anyway, tinkering with ports is definitely not portable ;)

Samuel

--
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/