Skip to main content.
home | support | download

Back to List Archive

Re: swish.cgi

From: David L Norris <dave(at)not-real.webaugur.com>
Date: Tue Dec 04 2001 - 02:14:30 GMT
On Mon, 2001-12-03 at 20:49, Bill Moseley wrote:
> Activestate's perl will emulate fork on windows.  I don't know if NT has a
> real fork or not (I thought NT was POSIX and should thus support fork, but
> maybe that's not true).

Maybe they just emulated it.  I have no clue if NT supports fork or
not.  I'll try to find out.  I do recall reading an article somewhere
that mentioned fork using PERL.  Mentioned that ActiveState had enough
clout with Microsoft to get something related to fork changed in NT. 
(Microsoft wanted PERL on NT enough to contract ActiveState to port it.)

> I also use an ALRM signal.  Can that be done in Windows?

ActiveState seems to support it.  Win32 API definitely has some POSIX
signal related functions.  I'll check on it.  They could be stubs or do
something unexpected.  I do have an application that uses signals.  I've
been thinking about looking into porting it to Windows.  I may try to do
it to see how well signals work, if at all.  Might be sticky because I
had to use a custom system function to capture PIDs (and avoid Bourne
buffer attacks under sudo).

POSIX is rather well supported by Win32 if you are willing to dig
through the MSDN documentation to find it.  Microsoft has this annoying
habit of prefixing non-native functions with _ or __ for some reason. 
Maybe to force you to have a look at the manual?  I've found many people
just assume they don't exist and go to elaborate means to work around
them.  ;-)

Microsoft always seems to strictly adhere to either POSIX conventions or
Xenix where there is no POSIX equivalent (is there a case like this?
Seems like POSIX is heavily based on Xenix).  If it's not in Xenix or
POSIX then it's a good bet to be missing from Win32.  MSDN Library
indicates that Win32 API is intended to be backward compatible, at the
source level, with Xenix to ease porting to NT.  It does not say fully
POSIX compliant in the Library manuals, though.  Some functions are
individually stated to be fully POSIX complaint.

Then there's the issue of the header files.  They tend to be strangely
named.  Seems like often the file names were chosen from thin air. 
Other times they are from Xenix.  And, Xenix is somewhat strange to
begin with.

-- 
 David Norris
  Dave's Web - http://www.webaugur.com/dave/
  Augury Net - http://augur.homeip.net/
  ICQ Universal Internet Number - 412039
  E-Mail - dave@webaugur.com

  "I once went to the store to buy a computer but
   the salesman tried to sell me windows instead..."
Received on Tue Dec 4 02:15:09 2001