On Fri, Feb 22, 2013 at 03:44:48PM +0100, Corinna Vinschen wrote: >On Feb 22 09:32, Christopher Faylor wrote: >> On Fri, Feb 22, 2013 at 11:02:55AM +0100, Corinna Vinschen wrote: >> >On Feb 22 10:51, Corinna Vinschen wrote: >> >> On Feb 22 03:40, Yaakov wrote: >> >> > On Fri, 22 Feb 2013 09:49:51 +0100, Corinna Vinschen wrote: >> >> > > > access should go, no doubt about it. >> >> > > > >> >> > > > For get_osfhandle and setmode I would prefer maintaining backward >> >> > > > compatibility with existing applications. Both variations, with and >> >> > > > without underscore are definitely in use. >> >> > > > >> >> > > > What about exporting the underscored variants only, but define the >> >> > > > non-underscored ones: >> >> > > > >> >> > > > extern long _get_osfhandle(int); >> >> > > > #define get_osfhandle(i) _get_osfhandle(i) >> >> > > > >> >> > > > extern int _setmode (int __fd, int __mode); >> >> > > > #define setmode(f,m) _setmode((f),(m)) >> >> > > >> >> > > Just to be clear: On 32 bit we should keep the exported symbols, too. >> >> > > On 64 bit we can drop the non-underscored ones (which just requires >> >> > > to rebuild gawk for me) and only keep the defines for backward >> >> > > compatibility. >> >> > >> >> > Like this? >> >> >> >> Almost. The _setmode needs a tweak, too. I also think it makes >> >> sense to rename the functions inside of syscalls.cc: >> >> [...] >> > >> >I applied this patch to the 64 bit branch for now. >> >> I was actually expecting that we'd break the compilation of existing >> applications which incorrectly referenced get_osfhandle and setmode (I >> have a couple of those). It's a simple fix if someone recompiles and >> it wouldn't be the first time that you'd have to make a source code >> change when upreving to a new "OS". For 32-bit we would need to keep >> both in cygwin.din though, of course. > >I'm trying to keep up with backward compatibility on the source level >as far as it makes sense (for a given value of "sense").
Yeah, but I worry about carrying cruft like this around forever. I know it's a mile pain for the person who copmiles programs but it shouldn't be that big a deal to add an underscore. >> But, if you're going to use defines, why not just simplify them as: >> >> #define get_osfhandle _get_osfhandle >> #define setmode _setmode > >I can do that, but I thought error messages would be more meaningful >when using macros with arguments. Dunno, I was just trying to do >it right. Shall I still simplify them? I don't know. If you use your method and say, for example setmode(x) you'll get an error about a macro lacking arguments. If you said setmode ((char *) foo) you'd get an error about the '_setmode' function. If you defined the macro without arguments you'd get a compiler error referencing '_setmode' in both cases. I guess I'd want this to be consistent but I don't really care that much. cgf