Maybe Vince could set up a Win32 porting project page, and since we now seem to have a few interested parties willing to code on a native Win32 version, they should have their own project page. This could make communication easier for them and make sure the project doesn't die...
Chris > -----Original Message----- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Joerg > Hessdoerfer > Sent: Friday, 17 May 2002 4:36 AM > To: Magnus Naeslund(f) > Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: Re: [HACKERS] WIN32 native ... lets start?!? > > > On Thursday 16 May 2002 22:10, you wrote: > [...] > > > > What is the biggest problem here? > > The Shmem/IPC stuff, or the fork() stuff? > > I'm think that we could do a fork() implementation in usermode > by copying > > the memory allocations. How fast that would be regarding the context > > switches, i don't know, but i'm willing to experiment some to see how > > feesible this is... > > > > Anyone tried this before? > > > > Magnus > > > > > > ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- > > TIP 4: Don't 'kill -9' the postmaster > > The problem is not the fork() call itself, this has been done (MinGW and > cygwin I know of, possibly others) but the speed of fork() on > windows, it's > creepingly slow (due to usermode copy, I assume ;-). > > IPC needs to be done, I'm just about to start... > > Greetings, > Joerg > -- > Leading SW developer - S.E.A GmbH > Mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > WWW: http://www.sea-gmbh.com > > ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- > TIP 1: subscribe and unsubscribe commands go to [EMAIL PROTECTED] > ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- TIP 4: Don't 'kill -9' the postmaster
