On Wed, Aug 10, 2005 at 10:38:26AM -0700, Mark Mitchell wrote: >Daniel Jacobowitz wrote: >>On Wed, Aug 10, 2005 at 10:05:26AM -0700, Mark Mitchell wrote: >> >>>Christopher Faylor wrote: >>> >>> >>>>This would conflict with my proposed changes to pex-win32.c . It seems >>>>like getting '#!' functioning on mingw would be a better solution than >>>>relying on $(LN) on mingw. >>> >>>FWIW, I'm opposed to the "#!" change to MinGW. It just seems hackish to >>>me, and it means that we'll pay an additional cost on all normal uses of >>>pex-* on MinGW, even after the compiler is installed. >> >> >>Not if it's implemented after CreateProcess fails, we won't. I don't >>think your argument applies. > >Good point! > >I still think it's a bad solution, though; it's imposing special >semantics for process execution in libiberty, rather than the normal >ones that you would expect from the OS.
Aren't the pex* functions designed to provide a uniform interface where "uniform" means "like unix"? cgf
