On Tue, Mar 12, 2002 at 09:30:05AM +0100, Ralf
Habacker wrote:
I have done some analysing work with this and with the
cygwin daemon (cygserver transport classes)
there may be a
way in the future to implement unix domain sockets with
named pipes which speed up unix domain sockets up to
Do you have even a tiny bit of information about these certain
functions that you'd like to impart? Or is this an even higher level
version of the I don't see why they don't...
I'm really surprised to see this attitude. It's quite disappointing.
Dick-head mode detected... aborting
-Original Message-
From: Harold Hunt [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Wednesday, March 13, 2002 4:46 AM
To: cygx
Subject: RE: DDraw Blt vs BltFast
Ralf,
Those are some very interesting results. I especially like
the ones where Cygwin is 10 to 1000 times slower than
-Original Message-
From: Corinna Vinschen [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Wednesday, March 13, 2002 5:06 AM
To: Cygwin-Xfree
Subject: Re: DDraw Blt vs BltFast
On Tue, Mar 12, 2002 at 09:30:05AM +0100, Ralf Habacker wrote:
I have done some analysing work
-Original Message-
From: Christopher Faylor [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Wednesday, March 13, 2002 12:52 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: DDraw Blt vs BltFast
On Tue, Mar 12, 2002 at 06:06:16PM -0500, Harold Hunt wrote:
Fine. But how do you implement them on 9x
On Wed, Mar 13, 2002 at 03:14:53PM +1100, Robert Collins wrote:
I'm glad it sounds logical. Cygwin already has lots of code that is NT
specific, e.g., CYGWIN=ntsec.
I agree. I got the impression from Corinna's email that what Ralf was
suggesting needed a 9x equivalent to be seriously
Do you have to ?
You could allow more functional platform in the source tree to have
this new functionality while leaving the DOS based Windows at the current
support.
Yes - this will complicat matters and will probably need some kind of
abstraction layer in the source to 'hide' the difference
