wine/ tools/winewrap.c tools/winegcc.c include ...

Dimitrie O. Paun dpaun at
Mon Mar 31 20:29:56 CST 2003

On March 31, 2003 10:20 pm, Alexandre Julliard wrote:
> I'm not sure about that; it would be somewhat cleaner, but OTOH I'm
> not sure I like the idea of adding DOS functions in the portability
> layer...

However, if we are to depend on winegcc/winewrap, we need to be able
to compile it anyway, no? And since it has a well defined semantics 
(that's much more commonly available than the fork/exec), it's not 
necessarily a bad addition. 

I mean, there's nothing conceptually wrong with spawn/CreateProcess/etc.
vs. fork+exec. However, on system that are spawn-based, it's *so* 
difficult to simulate fork+exec, and for no good reason, if all you need
is to spawn another program. So it seems to me having spawn in a 
portability layer may actually be a good thing, since it's more 
semantically loaded than fork, and thus easier to simulate on a large 
range of systems.


More information about the wine-devel mailing list