This is the mail archive of the cygwin-developers@cygwin.com 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: Release 1.5.9 soon


vinschen wrote:
On Mar 19 15:39, Nicholas Wourms wrote:

...

64kb-boundry limitations of MapViewofFile for Win9x/Me/2k/XP:
http://freespace.virgin.net/james.brown7/tutorials/bigmem01.htm

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?

Corinna,


No, not in depth...
*rereads mmap.cc*
Ah yes, ok, I see the part where you take care of this. Sorry for the extra noise.


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.

Cheers,
Nicholas


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