Mailing-List: contact cygwin-help AT sourceware DOT cygnus DOT com; run by ezmlm List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: cygwin-owner AT sources DOT redhat DOT com Delivered-To: mailing list cygwin AT sources DOT redhat DOT com Message-ID: <030a01c0b97d$a9d05ff0$0200a8c0@lifelesswks> From: "Robert Collins" To: "Hyperion" , References: <01b301c0b97b$3178cc10$e984953e AT aldebaran> Subject: Re: Native Windows NT POSIX capabilities Date: Sat, 31 Mar 2001 10:57:40 +1000 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit 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: 31 Mar 2001 00:52:51.0821 (UTC) FILETIME=[E9EEF9D0:01C0B97C] ----- Original Message ----- From: "Hyperion" To: Sent: Saturday, March 31, 2001 10:36 AM Subject: Native Windows NT POSIX capabilities > As some of you already know (well, I guess), Windows NT has native > (incomplete) POSIX support. This is true since the obsolete Windows NT > 3, but only in Windows NT 5, with the improvements to the file system, > the POSIX support makes sense (still incomplete, but functional). They > even released a package named Interix, it's the equivalent of Cygwin > (shells, complilers, perl, even a X server) but runs directly on the > POSIX API, instead of emulating it with the Win32 API. Obviously it > doesn't support any Windows NT below 5. And INTERIX was licenced under the GPL at one pointin time - if you look around the source is available. > My question is: has anyone tried to build a GNU util linking against > crtdll (Microsoft C Runtime) and psxdll (POSIX API)? is it difficult or > just a trivial joke? Is it possible, at the present time, to build a > cross-compiler that works with the native POSIX API implementation of > Windows NT? I'd love to handle this myself, but I know zip about > compilers and I'm no C programmer (hint: my programs always begin with > "program" and end with "end." ;), and I'm afraid the porting wouldn't be > that easy. If this had been discussed before, I'll just quit asking. I don't think this particular case has been discussed, but the posix subsystem vs cygwin has been. I couldn't find anything in a quick look at the user guide or FAQ.. The core reason is that a) the NT POSIX subsystem is woefully incomplete. And b) not everyone has or desires Windows NT (in any incarnation) and c) interoperating the posix subsystem with the Win32 subsytem isn't as transparent as "simply" running POSIX applications within the win32 subsystem. > Anyway the advatages would be a better file system support > (case-sensitive filenames cygwin has that. > , filenames not supported by Win32, There's only a half dozen that cause problems: aux, lpt1 and the like. >native path remapping, etc) and really improved performance. It would have a limited > target (Windows 2000 or better), but it would piss off Microsoft too ;) > And it would be a great way to push Cygwin as a commercial product. The > only thing that pisses me off is the moronic implementation of Berkeley > sockets :( (darn WSAStartup()!) > > FYI, here are the functions exported by psxdll.dll: > (is something missing?) > In a word yes. compare the list with http://www.cygwin.com/faq/faq.html#SEC20 From the top of my head, pthread (_POSIX_THREADS) functions are completely absent, as are semaphore, and memory management. Rob > > > > -- > Want to unsubscribe from this list? > Check out: http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple > > -- Want to unsubscribe from this list? Check out: http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple