Release 1.5.9 soon
Sat Mar 20 00:41:00 GMT 2004
> On Mar 19 15:39, Nicholas Wourms wrote:
>>>64kb-boundry limitations of MapViewofFile for Win9x/Me/2k/XP:
>>Actually, there's a newer version, so this should be:
>>(Part 1) http://www.catch22.org.uk/tuts/bigmem01.asp
>>(Part 2) http://www.catch22.org.uk/tuts/bigmem02.asp
> Hmm, did you read the mmap code in Cygwin already?
No, not in depth...
Ah yes, ok, I see the part where you take care of this. Sorry for the
Out of curiosity, how goes the battle with the gcc people? Are they
going to renounce their unportable ways?
Isn't it ironic that they are so overzealous about their precious C++
standards that they are willing break source compatibility with a 1/3 of
the code out there, but when it comes to PCH, they are willing to settle
for a non-standard, non-portable interface? Of course, I take it that
the mantra around there is that if the OS isn't GPL'ed, who gives a *&%#.
And speaking of C++ standards, is it just me or does anyone else find
that huge list of features "which used to work, but now cause errors
with g++-3.4" totally outrageous? Do they do it to torture users who
have very little interst in C++ semantics and who only want to get a
package to compile? Do they have some keen desire to see developers
writhe in agony as they are forced to go through thousands and thousands
of lines of code making what are arguably stylistic changes just so g++
will build it? I don't know, but $20 says g++-3.4 will *refuse* to
compile the setup.exe sources.
More information about the Cygwin-developers