Windows port?

Denys Vlasenko vda.linux at googlemail.com
Wed Apr 14 20:42:41 UTC 2010


On Tue, Apr 13, 2010 at 10:33 PM, Nguyen Thai Ngoc Duy
<pclouds at gmail.com> wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 14, 2010 at 4:34 AM, Denys Vlasenko
> <vda.linux at googlemail.com> wrote:
>>> 4. ash
>>> ~1000 lines, half of them to work around fork(). Not everything works,
>>> and not really stable. I'm thinking about a thread-based ash so that
>>> it would work faster, but stability first.
>>
>> hush may be a better shell to work with, it can avoid using fork()
>> (will use vfork+preparatory_work_in_the_same_process_image+exec
>> if built for NOMMU, which probably maps better to Win CreateProcess()
>> call or whatever)
>
> And its functionality is quite limited too.

What do you miss most in it?

> The
> preparatory_work_in_the_same_process_image is done, all needed memory
> is packed into a big block, then mapped over the child process. Anyway
> I spent to much time with ash already.

It was just a suggestion. Maybe hacking on ash will be actually easier.
I don't know.
-- 
vda


More information about the busybox mailing list