On Jul 26 10:24, Daniel Colascione wrote: > On 7/26/2013 10:10 AM, Corinna Vinschen wrote: > > On Jul 26 09:55, Daniel Colascione wrote: > >> In Windows 8, the implementation is completely different. There, console > >> handles > >> are real kernel objects. > > > > Really? That's entirely new to me. Do you know if there's some description > > available? What are the implications? Are console handles now handles to > > something like named pipes as well? Is there a console FS comparable to > > \Device\NamedPipe\? > > I don't know the details, and I'm not aware of any new facilities exposed to > applications. I'd have loved a pseudoconsole API, but we didn't get one.
I see a new device called \Device\ConDrv and \GLOBAL?? now contains symlinks CON -> \Device\ConDrv\Console CONIN$ -> \Device\ConDrv\CurrentIn CONOUT$ -> \Device\ConDrv\CurrentOut > You can see the difference in a debugger, though: console pseudohandles *look* > strange and don't show up in the process handle table. The difference > shouldn't Console handle value % 4 != 0 > really matter, though: applications shouldn't really care what kind of handles > they get as long as system APIs accept them. The problem with writes larger > than > 8k (I think that was the limit?) to console handles failing seems to have > disappeared, though. Uhm... there was a problem? I don't see a hint on the net, nor on MSDN. The Cygwin DLL uses a maximum buffer size of 16K for console writes. If there's some documented problem, maybe we should reduce the size to 8K. > > But then again, doesn't that mean that your method stops working on W8? > > Not really --- it'll work fine. The difference means that operations on > console > handles that used not to work on Windows 7 might work on Windows 8. The public > API contract hasn't changed, however, so applications aren't supposed to be > doing these things anyway, and as long as application developers care about > testing their applications on Windows 7, they won't. > > If you eventually do start seeing applications that do things with console > handles that can't be done with console pseudohandles, well, you can hook more > APIs to preserve the console handle illusion. But that time is a long way > away, > if it ever arrives at all. I guess you're right. Thanks, Corinna -- Corinna Vinschen Please, send mails regarding Cygwin to Cygwin Maintainer cygwin AT cygwin DOT com Red Hat -- 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
