Is There a Reason for Limited "/dev/com" to 16 Ports?

Is There a Reason for Limited "/dev/com" to 16 Ports?

[Paul Rogers]

Should "devices.in" really have a limit of 16 "/dev/com" ports when the 
"ttyS" ports are allowed up to 64 values (max of 63 since it is a 
zero-based index)?

I changed the upper limit on the "com" range for 1.5.25 to "64" along 
with the "ttyS" range and it compiles and allows using the "/dev/com" 
aliases above 16 ports without a problem.

Yet when using a recent snapshot only "ttyS" ports work above the 16th 
port. The "/dev/com" identifiers beyond "16" do not open.

--
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/

Re: Is There a Reason for Limited "/dev/com" to 16 Ports?

[Christopher Faylor]

On Tue, Jun 17, 2008 at 04:34:04PM -0400, Paul Rogers wrote:
>Should "devices.in" really have a limit of 16 "/dev/com" ports when the
>"ttyS" ports are allowed up to 64 values (max of 63 since it is a
>zero-based index)?

You really should be using /dev/ttyS for linux compatibility.  The fact
that there is a /dev/com at all is really an artifact of the old device
implementation.

cgf

--
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/