This is the mail archive of the
cygwin@cygwin.com
mailing list for the Cygwin project.
RE: MIT shared memory extension
- From: "Robert Collins" <robert dot collins at itdomain dot com dot au>
- To: "Ralf Habacker" <Ralf dot Habacker at freenet dot de>,"cygwin" <cygwin at cygwin dot com>
- Date: Fri, 17 May 2002 20:37:58 +1000
- Subject: RE: MIT shared memory extension
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Ralf Habacker [mailto:Ralf.Habacker@freenet.de]
> Sent: Friday, May 17, 2002 8:30 PM
> I see an easier way to archive this. But this depends on an
> identical key_t type, which goes like the following
> (assuming, that cygwin ipc functions are exported, probably
> in the next cygwin release ?):
>
> install cygwin (ipc header goes into /usr/.. )
> install cygipc (ipc header goes to /usr/local/.. )
>
> so they can coexist. If the key_t are the same the only
> difference is a CFLAGS and LFLAGS setting
>
> Thats all. No patching headers. This enables migrating one
> package to cygwin ipc stuff, while other packages could use
> the cygipc stuff.
We still need to do the ABI upgrade though, before that can be done.
> BTW: This is another thread, but perhaps it is interesting
> for somebody to see. Below there is a first performance
> measurement of cygipc relating to cygserver shm support. Only
> for info.
Interesting. How to read the results? (is lower better or worse?).
Also, as you can read both codes without issue, would you care to
document how the cygipc one is much faster?
Rob
--
Unsubscribe info: http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple
Bug reporting: http://cygwin.com/bugs.html
Documentation: http://cygwin.com/docs.html
FAQ: http://cygwin.com/faq/