On Tue, Sep 21, 2010 at 5:13 PM, Andy Koppe <andy.ko...@gmail.com> wrote: > On 21 September 2010 12:51, Earnie wrote: >> Andy Koppe wrote: >>>> Cygwin isn't strictly obliged to provide an interface to Windows. >>> >>> No, but then it wouldn't really be Cyg*win* anymore. It would >>> effectively be Interix with a particularly slow fork(). That's >>> unless it moved into its own subsystem, which of course would mean a >>> major redesign. Also, it would be good-bye to cygutils, mintty, >>> rxvt-native, Xwin and anything else that mixes POSIX with the Windows >>> API. >> >> Which isn't going to sell. No one will want the changes. > > I'm sure there are a fair few people who'd trade a faster fork() for > reduced Windows integration, although I'm not among them.
Are you suggesting that assuming long == pointer size results in a fast fork? Because that was the root of the discussion, if I'm following properly. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Start uncovering the many advantages of virtual appliances and start using them to simplify application deployment and accelerate your shift to cloud computing. http://p.sf.net/sfu/novell-sfdev2dev _______________________________________________ Mingw-w64-public mailing list Mingw-w64-public@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/mingw-w64-public
