Hey Chris Cygwin is an option. Albeit one I wouldn’t use. The guys who did pf9 used mingw. Which I also wouldn’t use. I like MS Visual Studio with access to the native libraries on the platform of my choice - so colour me bigoted.
I was kind of wondering if there was an option for people who like Microsoft development tools to build Plan9 tools, which are admittedly a minority taste in the Windows world, without spending several weeks installing 3rd party tools and then being told how stupid they are. > On 28/07/2016, at 1:27 PM, Chris McGee <sirnewton...@yahoo.ca> wrote: > > I was thinking of using Cygwin to see would be capable of compiling p9p. > > Chris > >> On Jul 27, 2016, at 9:08 PM, Andrew Simmons <kod...@gmail.com> wrote: >> >> What the subject line says. >> >> This is not remotely intended to disrespect Sean Quinlan’s 9pm, or the guys >> who did pf9. I’m just asking because there are still chunks of p9p that I’d >> like to have under Windows. Some of the chunks I want (mostly the command >> line utilities, also sam, not so much acme) I’ve managed to build under >> Microsoft Visual Studio (note to self - wash mouth out and learn to eschew >> IDEs and love mk ((also, sub-note to self, don’t use syntax highlighting))) >> >> But, and this is a large but, there are parts of p9port that seem to be >> dependent on the Unix world - unix pipes for one, the stuff about sigjmp for >> another. >> >> So, what the subject line says, but also - how much of the Unix-specific >> stuff in the current p9p is essential to a port to Windows? >> >> Go in peace >> James V Choate XXXVI >> >> >> > >
