X-Recipient: archive-cygwin AT delorie DOT com
X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-1.0 required=5.0	tests=AWL,BAYES_00,T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD
X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org
Message-ID: <4DE58AE3.904@tlinx.org>
Date: Tue, 31 May 2011 17:42:11 -0700
From: Linda Walsh <cygwin AT tlinx DOT org>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 6.0; en-US; rv:1.8.1.24) Thunderbird/2.0.0.24 Mnenhy/0.7.6.666
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: "cygwin AT cygwin DOT com" <cygwin AT cygwin DOT com>
Subject: Re: Why does windows have such probs with dynamically loaded libs?
References: <loom DOT 20110529T133128-564 AT post DOT gmane DOT org> <20110529233841 DOT GC5283 AT ednor DOT casa DOT cgf DOT cx> <loom DOT 20110530T093057-556 AT post DOT gmane DOT org> <20110530174649 DOT GB14225 AT ednor DOT casa DOT cgf DOT cx> <4DE5773D DOT 9040008 AT tlinx DOT org> <4DE579AC DOT 1040007 AT redhat DOT com>
In-Reply-To: <4DE579AC.1040007@redhat.com>
X-Stationery: 0.5.1
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-IsSubscribed: yes
Mailing-List: contact cygwin-help AT cygwin DOT com; run by ezmlm
List-Id: <cygwin.cygwin.com>
List-Subscribe: <mailto:cygwin-subscribe AT cygwin DOT com>
List-Archive: <http://sourceware.org/ml/cygwin/>
List-Post: <mailto:cygwin AT cygwin DOT com>
List-Help: <mailto:cygwin-help AT cygwin DOT com>, <http://sourceware.org/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

Eric Blake wrote:
>"  By loading the same dlls in the child as in the parent,
> and _hoping_ that windows loads them at the same address as the parent."
---
	Ah-hah!...that's the main rub.   I could see that other pages would have
to be copied 'manually', baring some kernel call (probably an undocumented
NT call) that would allow for setting up COW pages, but guessed for copy given
the thorough level of MS documentation available on such matters.


> 
>> Does cygwin actually copy, or attempt to setup COW pages that are not
>> from static libs?   If so, wouldn't that catch dynamically loaded libs?
> 
> Windows doesn't support COW pages between a parent process and its
> spawned child, at least not in the windows subsystem.  And the
> documentation of the various subsystems lacking to the point that cygwin
> has no way of reproducing the subsystem setup utilized by Interix for
> its fork implementation (Interix doesn't have to care about interaction
> with the windows subsystem).
---
	Hmmm...I wonder...do you know if Interix setups COW pages on fork?
If so, why in the heck would it perform so much more slowly than cygwin
when running the same tasks (shell scripts and such that do lots of little 
forks)....  its performance was pretty bad next to cygwin, though that was
under XP, and several years back that I tested, so it may have changed).

  So yes, cygwin really is stuck with
> copying data, and for the data not directly manageable by user space,
> cygwin has to go to great lengths to circumvent random behaviors
> introduced by newer windows versions to try to get dlls loaded into the
> same location.
---
	Ahhh...the 'security enhancements!'....famous for making everyone's
life more difficult...(the major failing of security design -- if it was 
designed to be 'easier', everyone would use it!)

> 
>> This may be complete insanity, but given the low level of support of MS's
>> own Unix subsystem, I wonder if they might be persuaded (if it was
>> desired) to lend more help or hooks for cygwin to do its magic reliably. 
> 
> Put yourself in Microsoft's shoes - why would you want to make it easier
> for free software
----
	Um note, that may be 'free software', but it is running on top of
MS's paid OS.  With sufficiently well developed interoperability, I could see
MS using cygwin's compat on Windows as a protective force against people
switching to linux-desktops, since with good cygwin support, they can
have the best of both worlds -- of course there's the possibility
that 'Wine' will continue to make marked improvements which could
swing things more in the linux direction.

But even there, MS could still benefit, in that the often 
demanded apps run by Wine are MS apps.

> Once you answer
> that question, then you can see why it is unlikely that Cygwin will ever
> have enough weight to convince MS to make our lives easier.
---
Maybe MS will try to compete with Google on 'don't be evil'?   ;-)
Hey, 'it' **could** freeze over.... 

The real problem is the 'false lure' of corrupt business models like that
used by the record companies -- I'm sure SW companies would love to be able
to keep selling the same SW and getting royalties for life+50 (or whatever
it is these days)...  Who knows -- as the government gets more corrupt and
bought out by the corps, this may come to pass...









--
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