On Feb 7 10:45, Dave Korn wrote: > On 07 February 2007 10:18, Corinna Vinschen wrote: > > Btw., it just occured to me that I'd rather get rid of the 9x stuff in > > the 1.7.0 DLL entirely. This would have visible advantages. > > > > - The code size of the DLL would shrink by a good amount. > > > > - The autoloading of functions could be reduced to the functions not > > available on all NT versions. This would reduce the autoload overhead > > by about 90%. > > > > - The code complexity would be reduced enormously by stripping off at > > least 50% of the `if (wincap.foo ()) tests. This would also have > > some positive effects on the performance. > > > > - Long 32K pathname support doesn't exist in 9x. So, when we switch > > over to using the unicode functions for pathnames, we would have a > > lot of avoidable hassle to keep 9x running at all. > > > > You're all convinced, right? > > Hell yeah! Let's have a mass-delete-fest! > > We should tag the repository beforehand, just in case some retro-enthusiasts > feel like keeping 1.5.x alive on a branch and keeping it hobbling along on '9x > for a while longer.
We have a branch for 1.5.x already for >9 months. Guess where the recent 1.5.x releases came from? ;) Corinna -- Corinna Vinschen Please, send mails regarding Cygwin to Cygwin Project Co-Leader cygwin AT cygwin DOT com Red Hat
