This is the mail archive of the
cygwin-developers@cygwin.com
mailing list for the Cygwin project.
RE: fifos and named pipes
- To: "Robert Collins" <robert dot collins at itdomain dot com dot au>,<cygwin-developers at cygwin dot com>
- Subject: RE: fifos and named pipes
- From: "Robert Collins" <robert dot collins at itdomain dot com dot au>
- Date: Wed, 28 Mar 2001 10:46:43 +1000
- Thread-Index: AcC3HaHjWr2fpkNVQViJV2zdg/zVbgAAJ3HwAACLl1A=
- Thread-Topic: fifos and named pipes
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Robert Collins
> Sent: Wednesday, March 28, 2001 10:33 AM
> To: cygwin-developers@cygwin.com
> Subject: RE: fifos and named pipes
>
>
>
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Christopher Faylor [mailto:cgf@redhat.com]
> > Sent: Wednesday, March 28, 2001 10:20 AM
> > To: cygwin-developers@cygwin.com
> > Subject: Re: fifos and named pipes
> >
> >
> > On Wed, Mar 28, 2001 at 09:06:14AM +1000, Robert Collins wrote:
> > >Just thought you'd like to know: named pipes under win32
> (which I was
> > >considering using for the NT implementations) don't have the same
> > >semantics as under openBSD.... so I'm going with my roll-your-own
> > >approach .
> >
> > What about regular pipes? I suggested that you could just use those
> > along with some glue to duplicate handles between processes.
>
> I haven't tested anonymous pipes yet. Even if I do use those,
> I need the
> glue to identify what pipes are available first - that's what
> I'm on now
> (step 3 of 5). I plan to look at that once I've got a rough-and-ready
> implementation going.
>
Speaking of the glue to see what pipe are available: can I use the
cygwin shared memory area? any caveats/must dos/must not dos with doing
that?
Rob