From: miguelb AT omega DOT lncc DOT br (Fabricio Chalub) Subject: Re: Sockets in gnu-win32 25 Nov 1996 10:53:05 -0800 Sender: daemon AT cygnus DOT com Approved: cygnus DOT gnu-win32 AT cygnus DOT com Distribution: cygnus Message-ID: <3299C7F1.1BE6.cygnus.gnu-win32@omega.lncc.br> References: <199611242044 DOT MAA20139 AT cirdan DOT cygnus DOT com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.01Gold (Win95; I) Original-To: Geoffrey Noer Original-CC: gnu-win32 AT cygnus DOT com Original-Sender: owner-gnu-win32 AT cygnus DOT com Geoffrey Noer wrote: > > Fabricio Chalub taps on the keyboard: > > > > The sockets support in gnu-win32 works just fine, but is standing on the > > thin ice... for example, some functions are missing, some headers points > > to void and some functions are mapped in a poor way... in > > , we have this lovely---what should I call---workaround: > > > > #define socket cygwin32_socket > > > > which of course maps the BSD API to a function that in turn probably > > calls the Winsock32 API (too many function calls, but I guess that's > > normal when one maps some system into another.) > [...] > > The way sockets work, we export socket-related functions in the cygwin.dll > as cygwin32_funcname and then use defines to map these names to the > ordinary ones. > > In normal use, you will get the cygwin32 sockets. However, if you choose > to use WinSock, you can do so without giving up access to the rest of the > Cygwin32 API simply by not including the header. > > If anyone can think of a better way of doing this, please let me know... > But why do you have to define the names as cygwin32_xxx and *then* redefine as xxx? Why just don't write the functions with their real names? Are there any conflicts? I mean, I don't think that anyone would use *both* WinSock and Sockets at the same time. :) []s fabricio chalub - For help on using this list, send a message to "gnu-win32-request AT cygnus DOT com" with one line of text: "help".