From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: N8TM@aol.com
To: jonpryor@vt.edu, cygwin@sourceware.cygnus.com
Subject: Re: Compiled executable differences between 9x and NT
Date: Wed, 31 Mar 1999 19:45:00 -0000
Message-ID: <3f153aea.36e482f7@aol.com>
X-SW-Source: 1999-03n/msg00276.html
Message-ID: <19990331194500.m7C3EsBYNl6U01m6GsPlvza-rXIiRV_Te9H9-DBH_CA@z>

In a message dated 3/8/99 6:23:52 AM Pacific Standard Time, jonpryor@vt.edu
writes:

<< 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.

<<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.

<<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 to
build egcs from patch files.  The snapshot releases have made progress on the
vfork failures of the original b20.1 under W95.  There are also things which
work better under W95 than NT.  One of them is catching success/failure
returns from gcc/g++/g77 compiled a.exe.

--
Want to unsubscribe from this list?
Send a message to cygwin-unsubscribe@sourceware.cygnus.com