EOL for Windows 95/98/Me

Corinna Vinschen corinna-cygwin@cygwin.com
Wed Feb 7 10:57:00 GMT 2007


On Feb  7 10:45, Dave Korn wrote:
> On 07 February 2007 10:18, Corinna Vinschen wrote:
> > Btw., it just occured to me that I'd rather get rid of the 9x stuff in
> > the 1.7.0 DLL entirely.  This would have visible advantages.
> > 
> > - The code size of the DLL would shrink by a good amount.
> > 
> > - The autoloading of functions could be reduced to the functions not
> >   available on all NT versions.  This would reduce the autoload overhead
> >   by about 90%.
> > 
> > - The code complexity would be reduced enormously by stripping off at
> >   least 50% of the `if (wincap.foo ()) tests.  This would also have
> >   some positive effects on the performance.
> > 
> > - Long 32K pathname support doesn't exist in 9x.  So, when we switch
> >   over to using the unicode functions for pathnames, we would have a
> >   lot of avoidable hassle to keep 9x running at all.
> > 
> > You're all convinced, right?
> 
>   Hell yeah!  Let's have a mass-delete-fest!
> 
>   We should tag the repository beforehand, just in case some retro-enthusiasts
> feel like keeping 1.5.x alive on a branch and keeping it hobbling along on '9x
> for a while longer.

We have a branch for 1.5.x already for >9 months.  Guess where the
recent 1.5.x releases came from? ;)


Corinna

-- 
Corinna Vinschen                  Please, send mails regarding Cygwin to
Cygwin Project Co-Leader          cygwin AT cygwin DOT com
Red Hat



More information about the Cygwin-developers mailing list