Date: Thu, 22 Nov 2007 02:24:49 -0500
From: Christopher Faylor <cgf-use-the-mailinglist-please AT cygwin DOT com>
To: cygwin AT cygwin DOT com
Subject: Re: Announce: FlexDLL, flexible DLLs under Windows
Message-ID: <20071122072449.GA28158@ednor.casa.cgf.cx>
Reply-To: cygwin AT cygwin DOT com
Mail-Followup-To: cygwin AT cygwin DOT com
References: <4742E7F7 DOT 8000400 AT frisch DOT fr> <057201c82b84$98ee9870$2e08a8c0 AT CAM DOT ARTIMI DOT COM> <4744578C DOT 3050109 AT frisch DOT fr> <000e01c82c5b$23d86750$2e08a8c0 AT CAM DOT ARTIMI DOT COM> <20071121171342 DOT GA26737 AT ednor DOT casa DOT cgf DOT cx> <4744E9AE DOT 664E0AF8 AT dessent DOT net>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <4744E9AE.664E0AF8@dessent.net>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.16 (2007-06-09)
Mailing-List: contact cygwin-help AT cygwin DOT com; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
Sender: cygwin-owner AT cygwin DOT com
Mail-Followup-To: cygwin AT cygwin DOT com

On Wed, Nov 21, 2007 at 06:30:06PM -0800, Brian Dessent wrote:
>Christopher Faylor wrote:
>>somebody else wrote:
>>>Not an unreasonable idea, but very hard to make work when we really
>>>want cygwin apps to basically be windows apps; I can't see how cygwin
>>>could support e.g.  an ELF loader and yet still be able to launch
>>>cygwin apps from cmd.exe rather than having to fire up bash or
>>>whatever.
>>
>>It could theoretically do that if it had it's own loader for ELF
>>binaries.
>
>Yes, probably.  But then you run into the situation where you're doing
>things behind the back of Windows, so to speak.  The first thing that
>comes to mind is the prefetching that is present in XP and later, which
>reduces process startup time by recording the disk extents of all
>images involved in startup so that they can be loaded all at once
>sequentially the next time the process starts.

That wouldn't be a terrifically big problem for things like, e.g.,
libncurses.so and the majority of the shared libraries used by cygwin.

>The next thing is the memory manager, which I think treats DLLs
>differently than generic file mappings for the purpose of maintaining
>and trimming the working set.  And I wonder if there are further things
>that would not be possible without specific kernel support -- unless
>maybe you had a real win32 stub image for each exe/dll.

Of course you'd have a real win32 stub for the exe.  I'm not talking
about writing a kernel driver or a new subsystem and I'm not talking
about an all-or-nothing scenario.

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/