Re: setup will have to wait :[

[Christopher Faylor <cgf at redhat dot com>]

On Mon, Mar 26, 2001 at 07:57:59AM +1000, Robert Collins wrote:
>> Cygwin doesn't implement named pipes.  Isn't a fifo == a named pipe
>> anyway?
>
>Yes. I'm looking into the behaviour in more detail defore I cut code,
>but yes. My planned implementation is a shared memory region that lists
>the named pipes open on the system (maintained automagically via any
>open cygwin process), a couple of waitable objects (probably 1 semaphore
>and 1 event) per open fifo, and finally a (pick a good buffer size)
>shared memory region for doing the actual data transfer.

How about just using actual pipes?  You could duplicate handles between
processes.

I don't know if pipe semantics are the same as fifos but I suspect that
they are.

cgf