Date: Thu, 31 Mar 2011 16:58:10 -0400
From: Christopher Faylor <cgf-use-the-mailinglist-please AT cygwin DOT com>
To: cygwin AT cygwin DOT com
Subject: Re: NT4?
Message-ID: <20110331205810.GA17218@trixie.casa.cgf.cx>
Reply-To: cygwin AT cygwin DOT com
Mail-Followup-To: cygwin AT cygwin DOT com
References: <20110331203416 DOT GB2606 AT calimero DOT vinschen DOT de> <COL102-W1127E01ADC7B56DB2A8A8BB5BF0 AT phx DOT gbl>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <COL102-W1127E01ADC7B56DB2A8A8BB5BF0@phx.gbl>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.20 (2009-06-14)
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 Thu, Mar 31, 2011 at 01:47:43PM -0700, Karl M wrote:
>
>> Date: Thu, 31 Mar 2011 22:34:16 +0200
>> From: corinna-cygwin
>> Subject: NT4?
>>
>> Is anybody here still using Cygwin on Windows NT4 on a daily basis? I'm
>> asking because we're planning to drop NT4 support entirely and I would
>> like to know if there are lots of people who would be very sad if that
>> happens.
>>
>No...Haven't even used w2k in the last five years.
> 
>At some point, would there be any (significant) performance advantage to
>moving (some of the) platform differences to compile time? (Not for all of
>the applications, just for the Cygwin DLL and perhaps cygserver?

You mean something like:

gcc -DALLOW_NT4 something-random-program.c

There would be no benefit whatsoever to allowing something like that since
there would still have to be accommodations in cygwin to handle it the
antique platform.

cgf

--
Problem reports:       http://cygwin.com/problems.html
FAQ:                   http://cygwin.com/faq/
Documentation:         http://cygwin.com/docs.html
Unsubscribe info:      http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple