On Fri, 2003-05-30 at 21:43, Greg Fenton wrote:
> Agreed on the performance. I have not had a "buggy" episode in quite
> some time.
Yes, stability does seem to have improved over the years. But, I still
don't trust it. ;-) Performance is usually pretty bad. But, it would
be fine for testing. Performance might not be too terrible since I'm
using only native Win32 calls.
> Having SWISH-E behave nicely in Cygwin would complete my
> development/test cycle.
Sounds good to me.
> > I should clarify that you would also need native libxml2, pcre, and
> > zlib builds.
> I'm quite sure that all this compiles under Cygwin.
Yes, building them would be much simpler under Cygwin since you have a
full Unix filesystem.
> The big problem from what I can tell (though, I don't claim to be a
> Cygwin developer...just a user) is that the swish-e blindly converts
> command paths using '\' on _WIN32. I think simply implementing Bill's
> suggestion (PATH_SEPARATOR) would work, but I have not looked into
Can we just disable make_windows_path() for Cygwin by modifying the
existing _WIN32 ifdef? Have you found any other problems?
> So, should I consider working on a patch?
If you want. I can try to incorporate it before 2.4.0 releases.
Bill, does Cygwin support for 2.4.0 sound like a good plan? I bet it's
a simple change.
ICQ - 412039
Received on Sat May 31 03:21:27 2003