Subject: Re: Modifications of standard headers for PECOFF
To: TAMURA Kent <firstname.lastname@example.org>
From: Bang Jun-Young <email@example.com>
Date: 05/24/2002 01:51:33
On Fri, May 24, 2002 at 01:04:13AM +0900, TAMURA Kent wrote:
> In message "Re: Modifications of standard headers for PECOFF"
> on 02/05/24, Bang Jun-Young <firstname.lastname@example.org> writes:
> > BTW, what advantages can we get by having support for PE/COFF in
> > the base system, compared to leaving it as separate package like
> > PEACE?
> We have a plan to implement some kernel32.dll functions in
> compat_pecoff. It should be more efficient than server approach
> like Wine.
Hmm...I'm skeptical that it's the right direction for us to have
PE/COFF support in the base source. IMHO, it'd be better to keep it
under sys/compat/pecoff and provide pkgsrc entries for PEACE.
More specifically, some reasons why I think so:
* PEACE need cross toolchain to build.
* PE/COFF has never been the native binary format of NetBSD, and never
will. It's only designed for Windows, not Unix.
* There are quite a number of API differences between MSVCRT and
NetBSD libc. Any binaries compiled with and successfully running with
PEACE libc.dll are not guaranteed to run on Windows with MSVCRT.DLL,
or vice versa.
* We don't want to fork off NetBSD/i386pecoff, NetBSD/alphapecoff, ...
from existing ports (do we?).
Bang Jun-Young <email@example.com>