On Thu, Oct 19, 2000 at 05:57:09PM -0400, Michael Vines wrote:
> On Thu, 19 Oct 2000, Jeff Dike wrote:
> > Very cool. I'll fiddle with my site some to add pointers to your stuff.
> > I'm curious as to why, once you had decided to do this, you didn't just link
> > the kernel in to get the real system calls. That would have resulted in a
> > completely independent implementation of UML... On Windows, no less...
> That's sortof what I was working towards when I got swamped with real work
> and had to stop. You can see that with the source for 'version2', how
> it's more laid out like the real kernel source. But the fact that the
> kernel is quite gcc specific was a real pain considering I was using VC++.
> I know cygwin would have been the logical choice, but I prefer the VC++
> debugger over gdb :)
Cygwin requires that all the cygwin dll's be installed on the executing
machine though, right? So ideally, a UML port to NT would be with VC
(which I realize would be a tremendous pain in the ass)