In message "Re: Modifications of standard headers for PECOFF"
    on 02/05/24, Bang Jun-Young <junyoung@mogua.com> 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.

-- 
TAMURA Kent <kent2002@hauN.org> <kent@netbsd.org>