This is the mail archive of the
gdb-patches@sourceware.org
mailing list for the GDB project.
Re: [MinGW-w64]Build gdb/ctf.c failed
- From: Eli Zaretskii <eliz at gnu dot org>
- To: Kai Tietz <ktietz70 at googlemail dot com>
- Cc: asmwarrior at gmail dot com, tromey at redhat dot com, yao at codesourcery dot com, gdb-patches at sourceware dot org
- Date: Mon, 25 Mar 2013 16:24:45 +0200
- Subject: Re: [MinGW-w64]Build gdb/ctf.c failed
- References: <83ip4s4ixc dot fsf at gnu dot org> <1363407692-18959-1-git-send-email-yao at codesourcery dot com> <1363407692-18959-4-git-send-email-yao at codesourcery dot com> <CADPb22RwSq0iv_gQu5PSGezQoUy0ve16M2hmL51HvM19v0M5Ow at mail dot gmail dot com> <51492077 dot 30307 at codesourcery dot com> <83sj3qyogk dot fsf at gnu dot org> <87vc8m7z1d dot fsf at fleche dot redhat dot com> <514FA117 dot 9030604 at gmail dot com> <83hajz3oef dot fsf at gnu dot org> <CAEwic4Y020-LqwtNeYFXn3oQvk5fWBFm1T5ZoAmwqPSpD=PASg at mail dot gmail dot com> <83boa73mty dot fsf at gnu dot org> <CAEwic4aP6EHo0Kxu=qxCF1MFNWPt02QoSAUyuRuN1riAJif8Yg at mail dot gmail dot com> <837gkv3maf dot fsf at gnu dot org> <CAEwic4ag2-dHuoZHwLApVdoYzb+ueP1+xV+sBa0NOnpB+s4NOg at mail dot gmail dot com> <8338vj3i1w dot fsf at gnu dot org> <CAEwic4Z0kRjmUuEh3y5h6uMCCSyzxwScGwzspD2jwxP1xYx3rA at mail dot gmail dot com> <83wqsv1v4b dot fsf at gnu dot org> <CAEwic4aPEWywfDQLqPYdUsoOxqv4zr4eFrHDEb2EtoJjOApsVg at mail dot gmail dot com>
- Reply-to: Eli Zaretskii <eliz at gnu dot org>
> Date: Mon, 25 Mar 2013 14:30:15 +0100
> From: Kai Tietz <ktietz70@googlemail.com>
> Cc: asmwarrior@gmail.com, tromey@redhat.com, yao@codesourcery.com, gdb-patches@sourceware.org
>
> >> The header io.h isn't a POSIX one, and therefore you should just
> >> expect what actual is documented by vendor (in msdn) for it and not
> >> what one implementation mightz does.
> >
> > MinGW's unistd.h includes io.h, and thus gets both mkdir and _mkdir.
> Yeah, and that's an implementation detail and IMHO even a bug, because
> msdn is documenting it differently ... but well that is in this case
> just nit-picking.
> > One could perhaps argue that this is or isn't a mistake, but given the
> > precedence, having a different arrangement in MinGW64 is unfortunate,
> > since it will mean more #ifdef'ing in the projects that want to
> > support both.
>
> Yeah, therefore don't rely on implementation details.
MinGW was the only Free Software environment for Windows for many
years. So its implementation details have already spread to many
projects. That alone should make its implementation a kind of
de-facto standard, breaking which needs a very good reason.
But I feel that you disagree.