On Feb 22 10:27, Christopher Faylor wrote: > 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.
Alternatively, we We keep exporting the unloved symbols and add an __attribute__ ((deprecated)) in the header, as we did for cygwin_conv_to_win32_path and friends. > >> 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. Me neither. I can define them just by name, but that depends on the above decision. Corinna -- Corinna Vinschen Please, send mails regarding Cygwin to Cygwin Maintainer cygwin AT cygwin DOT com Red Hat