On Oct 3 12:25, Brian Ford wrote: > On Mon, 3 Oct 2005, Corinna Vinschen wrote: > > > On Sep 30 18:39, Brian Ford wrote: > > > On Fri, 30 Sep 2005, Corinna Vinschen wrote: > > > > Actually we have two states, applications built before we changed the > > > > header file and applications built after we changed the header file. > > > > > > Let's just not change it ;-). > > > > No, let's change it. Winsock2 is the way to go. Winsock1 is just old > > stuff. Since Cygwin is using Winsock2 when running on a 98 system or > > above, and since applications using the old/wrong Winsock1 values are > > broken right now anyway, there's no gain to keep the old values and > > force all new (and supposed to be working) applications to go through > > a translation stage. Let the old applications suffer, not the new ones. > > That's a reasonably convincing argument. I just wish fixing this didn't > require an application recompile. I didn't think that was the Cygwin > philosophy...<time passes> Oh, you mean do the translation only for older > apps? That sounds good.
I've just applied a patch, which does all of that, removing the last remains of Winsock1 support, as well as changing the IPPROTO_IP values in include/cygwin/socket.h to the new Winsock2 values, as well as checking for the applications ABI version number so that older applications get the values translated into the new Winsock2 values in setsockopt/getsockopt on the fly. This still needs some testing. Corinna -- Corinna Vinschen Please, send mails regarding Cygwin to Cygwin Project Co-Leader cygwin AT cygwin DOT com Red Hat, Inc.