Mailing-List: contact cygwin-help AT cygwin DOT com; run by ezmlm
List-Subscribe: <mailto:cygwin-subscribe AT cygwin DOT com>
List-Archive: <http://sources.redhat.com/ml/cygwin/>
List-Post: <mailto:cygwin AT cygwin DOT com>
List-Help: <mailto:cygwin-help AT cygwin DOT com>, <http://sources.redhat.com/ml/#faqs>
Sender: cygwin-owner AT cygwin DOT com
Mail-Followup-To: cygwin AT cygwin DOT com
Delivered-To: mailing list cygwin AT cygwin DOT com
Message-ID: <3EBD2F64.6080604@ece.gatech.edu>
Date: Sat, 10 May 2003 12:57:08 -0400
From: Charles Wilson <cwilson AT ece DOT gatech DOT edu>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.0; en-US; rv:1.4a) Gecko/20030401
X-Accept-Language: en-us, en
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Robert Collins <rbcollins AT cygwin DOT com>, cygwin AT cygwin DOT com
Subject: Re: cygipc (and PostgreSQL) XP problem resolved!
References: <20030506174725 DOT GE1652 AT tishler DOT net>	 <3EB84F52 DOT 3020608 AT ece DOT gatech DOT edu> <20030507133326 DOT GA1824 AT tishler DOT net>	 <3EB9A54B DOT 8060500 AT ece DOT gatech DOT edu> <20030508135217 DOT GD512 AT tishler DOT net>	 <3EBB22F5 DOT 4000801 AT ece DOT gatech DOT edu> <1052541657 DOT 1675 DOT 5 DOT camel AT localhost>	 <3EBC8ED0 DOT 4040906 AT ece DOT gatech DOT edu>	 <20030510072239 DOT GA19367 AT cygbert DOT vinschen DOT de> <1052554219 DOT 1824 DOT 14 DOT camel AT localhost>
In-Reply-To: <1052554219.1824.14.camel@localhost>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

Robert Collins wrote:

> key_t, as it's used for ipc, is likely to be *problematic* to transition
> in a 'fat binary' style.
> 
> You'd need a 32 bit set of key creation routines, and and translation
> table to lookup 32bit keys in the list of 64 bit keys ....

Which basically aliases the entire 64bit key space down to 32bit space 
-- which kinda short circuits whole reason that cygdaemon wanted 64bits 
in the first place.

I don't think it's worthwhile to do a 'fat binary' style implementation 
for key_t.

> Given that cygipc is *not* in cygwin today, and you'd be adding it, I'd
> simply have it 64 bit from the first release uploaded to sources.

Yes, I agree -- but (obviously) only if newlib/cygwin decide that the 
64bit key_t definition is a good idea, and accept a patch to do so.

> And I'd time that for oh, a day after cygwin 1.5 goes up as a testing
> package. (And release cygipc as testing whilst cygwin 1.5 stays in
> testing).

Yeah, that sounds reasonable.

I take it you're in favor of adding cygipc to the distro (or are you 
speaking academically)?

--Chuck



--
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/