>>>On Tue, Apr 26, 2011 at 01:34:16PM -0400, bob 295 wrote: >>>>I recognize that Cygwin fifos are "buggy and not suitable for anything but >>>>simplest of applications", however in the spirit of seeing if things can be >>>>improved here is some more test code which illustrates one of the "bugs". >> >>>Maybe I need to be clearer: I don't need demonstrations of bugs. I know >>>what doesn't work. >> >>>The fifo layer needs a total rewrite right now. Sending this type of email >>>is a waste of your time. >> >>>cgf >> >>Fair enough. Is that total rewrite underway? If so any idea when we'll see >>a workable version? If not what would it take to expedite things? More >>developer resources? What type of skillset would you need?
>I'm not currently actively working on it. I've just been contemplating >various methods for dealing with the issues. The bottom line is that I >thought that Windows Named pipes would be the perfect way to implement >Cygwin's fifos and it turns out they are actually not well suited for >that task. >This is a free software project so you can see for yourself what's >needed. The majority of the code is in fhandler_fifo.cc. >cgf Sounds like a perfect candidate for a Google Summer of Code project proposal. bob -- Problem reports: http://cygwin.com/problems.html FAQ: http://cygwin.com/faq/ Documentation: http://cygwin.com/docs.html Unsubscribe info: http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple
