Re: win95 support

[Christopher Faylor <cgf at redhat dot com>]

On Sun, Sep 16, 2001 at 12:25:06PM -0700, Matt wrote:
>On Sun, 16 Sep 2001, Christopher Faylor wrote:
>
>> There is one specific issue with PeekNamedPipe not detecting EOF that
>> exists on Windows 95 -> Windows ME.  I was hoping that maybe if I could
>> do a WFSO on a pipe on these platforms that I could possibly work around
>> this problem.  That was not the case.
>>
>> I guess it is possible that this would work on something > Windows 95.
>> I didn't test that.  I tend to doubt that Microsoft would make things
>> less compliant with their documentation as they "improved" the
>> OS so I didn't think it was worth tracking down.
>
>The [comaptibility] portion of one of the INI files is enormous in win98,
>it serves to make certain API calls behave in a bug-compatible way with
>the original win95. If you can give me a test program, I would be more
>than happy to test it on win98 and get back to the list ASAP.
>
>
>> So, to reiterate, the issue of dropping Windows 95 does not solve the
>> pipe problem in any way.
>
>If WFSO works as documented (or better) in win98 it still wouldn't help?
>Sorry for my confusion, was up slaying bugs until 4am last night. :)

As I said in my response to Robert, you are not supposed to be able to
use WF[MS]O for file handles.  And, you can't use them for pipe handles.
If it did work, then it would be against the documentation.  I was
essentially grasping at straws by even attempting a test case.  I knew
that it didn't work on NT but I thought that if it did work on 95 it
would be a kludgy work around for the 9x pipe problem.

If WFSO did something useful on 98 (which is doubtful) it still is not
a solution.  I'm not willing to give up on Windows 95 yet.

I appreciate the offer to help but having me explain myself repeatedly
is not going to get the problem solved.

It might be best if you read up on WaitForSingleObject and
WaitForMultipleObjects.  There is nothing that needs to be tested.
Everything works exactly as Microsoft documented that it would.

So, to reiterate, the 95 observation was just a casual observation.  I
wasn't looking for testers.  I wasn't trying to suggest that we drop
95.  I don't think there is any reason to keep talking about it.

cgf