wine/ tools/winewrap.c tools/winegcc.c include ...
Dimitrie O. Paun
dpaun at rogers.com
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
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