[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <514689F3.5080805@eservices.virginia.edu>
Date: Sun, 17 Mar 2013 23:28:51 -0400
From: Zvi Gilboa <zg7s@...rvices.virginia.edu>
To: <musl@...ts.openwall.com>
Subject: Re: question: hard-coded file descriptors in stdin/stdout/stderr
>> Doesn't mingw already exist?
Of course it does, but it does not allow one to compile unmodified posix
code.
>> How on earth does licensing on WINDOWS matter, since the base OS is
proprietary? So this is explicitly "provide free stuff to make paying
money to Microsoft more appealing"?
My approach on that issue is apparently rather different. But as often
happens, the greatest resistance comes not from those who oppose one's
goal, but rather from those who share the same goal, yet differ in their
vision as to how it should be reached. My hope is that as my project
evolves, you, too, will become one of its supports.
Best regards,
Zvi
On 03/17/2013 11:14 PM, Rob Landley wrote:
> On 03/14/2013 12:51:19 PM, Zvi Gilboa wrote:
>> >> which ones?
>>
>> ... since you are asking... inspired by musl-libc, I am currently
>> writing a win32
>> /win64 open-source library that implements/provides POSIX system
>> calls (see note
>> below). I believe that having a powerful libc with an MIT license
>> available on
>> Windows would actually be of great value to the open source community
>> for all
>> possible reasons, but that is of course irrelevant to my question:)
>
> All possible reasons? I can't think of one.
>
> I have actually thought about this sort of thing. For example, I did a
> talk at the recent emebedded Linux conference explaining _why_ toybox
> and musl are important to Android:
>
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SGmtP5Lg_t0
>
>> The main issue here is that the standard file descriptors on Windows
>> are -10
>> (STD_INPUT_HANDLE), -11 (STD_OUTPUT_HANDLE), and -12 (STD_ERROR_HANDLE).
>
> In DOS, stdin, stdout, and stderr were 0, 1, and 2. What you just
> listed is an explicit violation of posix.
>
>> I could of course compensate for that in my code and "translate" the
>> POSIX special
>> file descriptor numbers to the Windows ones, however it would be more
>> elegant if musl
>> -libc used the descriptors defined in <unistd.h> instead of
>> hard-coded numbers.
>
> You want to introduce non-posix assumptions into musl to make windows
> code more elegant.
>
> Really?
>
>>
>> * as for psxcalls: this is a C library, that exclusively uses the
>> Native API. It
>> attaches to ntdll.dll during run-time, and can thus be compiled as a
>> "native" static
>> library with no external dependencies.
>
> Doesn't mingw already exist?
>
>> While it is currently in its very initial
>> stage (and not yet online), the major "obstacle" features --
>> including fork()
>> -- have already been implemented. To remove all doubts,
>
> Remove all doubts? Really? All of them?
>
>> I am aware of Cygwin's existence,
>
> But apparently not mingw.
>
>> yet am looking for a high-performance solution that would be both
>> "clean" (psxcalls-->libc-->user-library-or-application), and flexibly
>> licensed.
>
> How on earth does licensing on WINDOWS matter, since the base OS is
> proprietary?
>
> So this is explicitly "provide free stuff to make paying money to
> Microsoft more appealing"?
>
> Rob
Powered by blists - more mailing lists
Confused about mailing lists and their use?
Read about mailing lists on Wikipedia
and check out these
guidelines on proper formatting of your messages.
