From: leva AT hotmail DOT com Newsgroups: comp.os.msdos.djgpp Subject: Re: interprocess synchronization and "Sharing violation" Date: Wed, 27 Jan 1999 17:19:57 GMT Organization: Deja News - The Leader in Internet Discussion Lines: 39 Message-ID: <78nhri$90u$1@nnrp1.dejanews.com> References: NNTP-Posting-Host: 195.208.33.83 X-Article-Creation-Date: Wed Jan 27 17:19:57 1999 GMT X-Http-User-Agent: Mozilla/4.01 [en] (Win16; I) X-Http-Proxy: 1.0 cc3.kapitza.ras.ru:3128 (Squid/1.1.21), 1.0 x12.dejanews.com:80 (Squid/1.1.22) for client 195.208.33.82, 195.208.33.83 To: djgpp AT delorie DOT com DJ-Gateway: from newsgroup comp.os.msdos.djgpp Reply-To: djgpp AT delorie DOT com Dear Eli! In article , djgpp AT delorie DOT com wrote: > > under Windows 95. Unfortunately this approach fails on Windows 3.11. Windows > > complain about Sharing Violation :-(. Perhaps somebody can suggest something > > here? > You could try calling DOS function 6Ch directly (rather than `open' or > `_open') and use the different sharing bits defined for that > function. Since it is easy to find out what version of Windows you > are running on, there should be no problem to have your program behave > differently on each version of Windows, should that be necessary. Well, I'm currently trying to do it. No success so far, though. Unfortunately I have no Win3.1 installation at home so development/target environments are spatially distant :-(. BTW, it seems (what I found while reading library sources) that there's no need in direct int21 calls - one can specify share flags in the static variable (something like __SHARE... - I don't remember exactly). > > 1. Is there any way to make windows 3.11 return with error rather than pop a > > messagebox to user? > Keep dreaming... I do. > > 2. Is there any way to synchronize processes without relying on the file > > system? > I cannot think of anything else, as far as DJGPP programs are concerned. The idea was to create a free program that anyone can modify. That's why DJGPP was used. I'm not aware of other free C-compilers whose output can be executed under Win3.1. To say truth, I even don't know if Win3.1 supplies its own (not DOS) applications some synchronization primitives. Well, anyway, thank you for your reply. -Leva. -----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==---------- http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Discuss, or Start Your Own