X_OK redefinition protection for Cygwin.

Christopher Faylor cgf@redhat.com
Sun Apr 22 17:27:00 GMT 2001

On Sun, Apr 22, 2001 at 07:06:45PM -0400, Christopher Faylor wrote:
>On Sun, Apr 22, 2001 at 10:21:53AM -0400, Earnie Boyd wrote:
>>I've included a new a more appropriate patch.
>>On Fri, Apr 20, 2001 at 12:46:49PM -0400, Christopher Faylor wrote:
>>>On Fri, Apr 20, 2001 at 12:39:31PM -0400, Earnie Boyd wrote:
>>>>What's the status of this patch?
>>>I don't see any reason to add protection to these files.  They have been
>>>like this for a long time.  Is this a long-standing problem?

Ok.  I understand the problem now.  My test case got the order of
include files "right" so that there was no error.

Oddly enough, the trunk version of gcc at gcc.gnu.org doesn't seem to
complain about this regardless of the order of arguments, either.
The cygwin version of gcc 2.95.3 does, of course.

I've checked this in.


More information about the Newlib mailing list