Re: cygipc (and PostgreSQL) XP problem resolved!

[Charles Wilson <cwilson at ece dot gatech dot edu>]

Robert Collins wrote:

> key_t, as it's used for ipc, is likely to be *problematic* to transition
> in a 'fat binary' style.
>
> You'd need a 32 bit set of key creation routines, and and translation
> table to lookup 32bit keys in the list of 64 bit keys ....

Which basically aliases the entire 64bit key space down to 32bit space 
-- which kinda short circuits whole reason that cygdaemon wanted 64bits 
in the first place.

I don't think it's worthwhile to do a 'fat binary' style implementation 
for key_t.

> Given that cygipc is *not* in cygwin today, and you'd be adding it, I'd
> simply have it 64 bit from the first release uploaded to sources.

Yes, I agree -- but (obviously) only if newlib/cygwin decide that the 
64bit key_t definition is a good idea, and accept a patch to do so.

> And I'd time that for oh, a day after cygwin 1.5 goes up as a testing
> package. (And release cygipc as testing whilst cygwin 1.5 stays in
> testing).

Yeah, that sounds reasonable.

I take it you're in favor of adding cygipc to the distro (or are you 
speaking academically)?

--Chuck



--
Unsubscribe info:      http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple
Problem reports:       http://cygwin.com/problems.html
Documentation:         http://cygwin.com/docs.html
FAQ:                   http://cygwin.com/faq/