This is the mail archive of the cygwin mailing list for the Cygwin project.

Index Nav: [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav: [Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]
Other format: [Raw text]

Re: Known Issues: document missing POSIX compliance and other unexpected behaviour

On Wed, Oct 06, 2004 at 06:15:10PM +0200, Reini Urban wrote:
>Christopher Faylor schrieb:
>>On Wed, Oct 06, 2004 at 05:11:03PM +0200, Reini Urban wrote:
>>>I found no document where missing POSIX functionality is listed
>>>and where other non-POSIX but expected typical UNIX functionality and/or
>>>behaviour are different or missing. The user guide is a bit short on that.
>>The only way such a document would be useful would be if it was
>>rigorously maintained.
>>You show the reason why below when you quote out-of-date parts of the
>>existing documentation.
>>It is certainly worthwhile to sweep through the docs and get everything
>>up-to-date, though.
>>This points to a page which explains (in an outdated manner)
>>implementation details of select.  I don't see how it applies.
>It applies as a TODO item. :)

TODO... what?

>>>See the user-guide on fork, ipc, COFF, ...
>Yes. Imho, the topic "processes" also includes loading a process.
>And handling the data structures in which the process is stored,
>even if not active ("loaded").
>And COFF is good to known/explain in contrast to ELF or a.out.
>Also for debugging purposes.

I guess I've lost track of what you're talking about.  I don't see
any reason to know about COFF if you are debugging.

>>>see and 
>>>Unfortunately cygwin must use seperate PID's than the
>>>underlying windows PID's.
>>The documentation is out of date.  This is not true.
>>I think I'll stop here.  You're showing that it would be worthwhile to
>>go through the document and look for stuff that is out of date.
>>I guess that would be a job for Corinna, Pierre, and me, since
>>no one else seems to understand these issues.  If someone else wants
>>to take a stab at it, however, please feel free.
>Sure, but where?
>In the list or elsewhere?

the list

>As I suggested in a wiki for some while until it is in the docs.  Seems
>to work out good, even if it should be "rigorously maintained", as you

Yes, you can make any method of communication work.  I would never advocate
going to some other site and working via a wiki when communicating via a
mailing list and having decisions archived in one place has been the way
we've been doing things for years.


Unsubscribe info:
Problem reports:

Index Nav: [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav: [Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]