This is the mail archive of the firstname.lastname@example.org
mailing list for the Cygwin project. See the Cygwin
home page for more information.
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
[Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Re: Compiled executable differences between 9x and NT
- To: <email@example.com>
- Subject: Re: Compiled executable differences between 9x and NT
- From: "Jonathan Pryor" <firstname.lastname@example.org>
- Date: Tue, 9 Mar 1999 08:42:15 -0500
- Delivered-To: email@example.com
- Delivered-To: mailing list firstname.lastname@example.org
- Mailing-List: contact email@example.com; run by ezmlm
- Sender: firstname.lastname@example.org
From: N8TM@aol.com <N8TM@aol.com>
To: jonpryor <jonpryor>; email@example.com
Date: Monday, March 08, 1999 9:37 PM
Subject: Re: Compiled executable differences between 9x and NT
>In a message dated 3/8/99 6:23:52 AM Pacific Standard Time, firstname.lastname@example.org
><< What are the *exact* differences between 95 and NT,
> as far as the cygwin environment and compiler are
> concerned? >>
>I imagine many of them are dependent on proprietary M$ information.
Differences between 95 and NT would be proprietary information.
I fail to see why differences in the behavior of cygwin-compiled
executables would be Microsoft proprietary, though... At the very
least, I would expect someone to have an idea of what (programs,
operations, commands, source code, etc.), in general, tends to
"break" 95 while working fine under NT.
><<Under 95, it's currently causing
>a "blue screen">>
>There's one of these when expect crashes in the egcs testsuite on W95. It
>doesn't get that far under NT.
What causes the crash in the egcs testsuite? Which test? Why does
it break (if known)?
><<Is there anything that is known to break 95 while
>working under NT?>>
>Of course, but I haven't seen any official list. One of them is attempting
>build egcs from patch files. The snapshot releases have made progress on
>vfork failures of the original b20.1 under W95. There are also things
>work better under W95 than NT. One of them is catching success/failure
>returns from gcc/g++/g77 compiled a.exe.
I suppose a better question would be: What C/C++ source has a
tendancy of segfaulting under 95, but working fine under NT?
I'd like to narrow down whether this is a problem with the
runtime under 95, or a problem with the OS itself. Either way,
if I know what source is "unsafe" under 95, I can try to re-write
my code to work safely under 95 as well as NT. But until I know
what issues to look out for, re-writing isn't an issue.
Want to unsubscribe from this list?
Send a message to email@example.com