From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: quimby.gnus.org!not-for-mail From: "Eli Zaretskii" Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: Re: Cygwin build (was: Using GDB in NTEMACS) Date: Wed, 27 Feb 2002 18:02:17 +0200 Message-ID: <3405-Wed27Feb2002180217+0200-eliz@is.elta.co.il> References: <200202270348.g1R3mAm02935@cate0-223.reshall.ou.edu> Reply-To: Eli Zaretskii NNTP-Posting-Host: quimby2.netfonds.no X-Trace: quimby2.netfonds.no 1014826225 7929 195.204.10.66 (27 Feb 2002 16:10:25 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@quimby2.netfonds.no NNTP-Posting-Date: 27 Feb 2002 16:10:25 GMT Cc: emacs-devel@gnu.org Original-Received: from fencepost.gnu.org ([199.232.76.164]) by quimby2.netfonds.no with esmtp (Exim 3.12 #1 (Debian)) id 16g6eu-00023n-00 for ; Wed, 27 Feb 2002 17:10:24 +0100 Original-Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=fencepost.gnu.org) by fencepost.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 3.33 #1 (Debian)) id 16g6ay-0007Zm-00; Wed, 27 Feb 2002 11:06:20 -0500 Original-Received: from heimdall.inter.net.il ([192.114.186.17]) by fencepost.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 3.33 #1 (Debian)) id 16g6ZD-0007Tg-00 for ; Wed, 27 Feb 2002 11:04:31 -0500 Original-Received: from zaretsky (diup-219-61.inter.net.il [213.8.219.61]) by heimdall.inter.net.il (Mirapoint) with ESMTP id BFP39834; Wed, 27 Feb 2002 18:04:22 +0200 (IST) Original-To: jcast@ou.edu X-Mailer: emacs 21.2.50 (via feedmail 8 I) and Blat ver 1.8.9 In-reply-to: <200202270348.g1R3mAm02935@cate0-223.reshall.ou.edu> (message from Jon Cast on Tue, 26 Feb 2002 21:48:10 -0600) Errors-To: emacs-devel-admin@gnu.org X-BeenThere: emacs-devel@gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.5 Precedence: bulk List-Help: List-Post: List-Subscribe: , List-Id: Emacs development discussions. List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: Xref: quimby.gnus.org gmane.emacs.devel:1601 X-Report-Spam: http://spam.gmane.org/gmane.emacs.devel:1601 > From: Jon Cast > Date: Tue, 26 Feb 2002 21:48:10 -0600 > > > * Do the ported toolkits support Windows fonts and/or > > Windows-specific encodings (a.k.a. codepages)? If not, we will need > > to think how to let users work with Windows locales. > > Dunno. I'd suggest to find out. Which toolkit to support is a major design constraint, so you'll probably want to make that decision up front. If the odds suggest to use Lesstiff, then the absence of support for Windows character sets would be a major PITA for the users. This is one area where XEmacs cannot help us, I think: its Windows port is not yet m17n-capable. > > * The shell issue: should the Cygwin port support only Bash, or the > > stock Windows shells as well? > > What are the issues with supporting Windows shells? PTY problems? What I had in mind was the support for running subprocesses. Stock Windows shells have peculiarities and misfeatures, such as different quoting rules, the nasty habit of returning zero exit status even if the command they ran failed, etc., and some of the shells are 16-bit programs which cannot be safely ran as async subprocesses. The Windows-specific code in Emacs (the w32*.c files) deals with these problems by redefining some library functions, and the issue I had in mind was whether to keep all that code or toss it. If you keep it, there might be complications due to redefinition of library functions. > > * There's also this talk among users of the Cygwin port of XEmacs > > about it being very slow, especially in Dired. I don't understand > > why would the Cygwin build be slow to the point that it annoys > > users, but perhaps we should try to do something about it. For > > example, if the reason is that the pipe implementation is slow, > > maybe we should use the ls-lisp.el package in the Cygwin port > > instead of the external `ls' program. > > > and > > seem to explain most of the speed difference. I don't think they really explain that. I replied to the first one with another data point that seems to contradict the assumption that `stat' is the explanation. As to the second one, Jason just reaffirmed what I heard many times elsewhere: that Cygwin applications are slower, but didn't give any explanations. Perhaps we should ask on the Cygwin list, where the Cygwin developers could give us authoritative answers. > Given these two factors, I doubt ls-lisp.el would be much faster for > a Cygwin port of Emacs than ls would be. If the problem is `stat', I agree. > I don't think it's a concern for now, though. Right; for now, it's just something to keep in mind. _______________________________________________ Emacs-devel mailing list Emacs-devel@gnu.org http://mail.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/emacs-devel