Christopher Faylor wrote:
>
> >> #if defined(_WIN32) || defined(__CYGWIN__)
> >>
> >> To accommodate *bad* ports, cygwin's gcc used to define _WIN32, but that
> >> behavior will be dropped soon IIRC.
> >
> >Where did you get that piece of information or are you dreaming?
> >Although I would wholeheartedly support such a move, I don't think that
> >the Cygwin's commercial client list would be that happy about such a
> >move.
>
> Actually, since we are now distributing the net release of gcc rather
> than some internal Red Hat release, we can make any changes that we
> want. The Red Hat releases can still use whatever makes sense.
>
This is good news. :)
> I have been reluctant to make the is change because I thought that it
> could potentially unleash a torrent of complaints here, actually.
>
I think that there is more confusion about which piece of code should be
ported. If we want Cygwin more UNIX like than Windows like then make
the change and we'll deal with the fallout on the list. The only
problems will be the GUI stuff that requires X, but perhaps that can be
worked around in the code, especially if there is Win32 support already.
Chuck, Eric or anyone else, have you tried using the -mno-win32 switch
when configuring for perl? I have successfully built perl without WIN32
definitions successfully for years now. Although my use of perl is
limited to things like automake and libtool it seams to work fine. I've
not had to modify anything for Cygwin specifics.
> >> Also, IMO, burying a constant
> >> definition like that in the middle of a .c is just poor programming.
> >> Put it in a header file somewhere, at the very least. Best, find out
> >> where the appropriate cygwin MAXPATH constant is defined in cygwin's
> >> system headers and #include the appropriate .h.
> >>
> >
> >I agree. But, a caution here is in order, don't include the
> >mingw/stdlib.h for a Cygwin program, they are only for use by the
> >-mno-cygwin switch. IMO, we need to add MAX_PATH and _MAX_PATH to
> >stdlib.h of Cygwin which requires a Newlib patch.
>
> I don't think that we need this for UNIX ported programs. It is not
> standard. I can't find it on any of the UNIX systems that I have access
> to.
>
I agree. However, IMO, if WIN32 macros are defined then so should
standard MS Windows definitions such ad MAX_PATH and _MAX_PATH.
Cheers,
Earnie.
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Talk to your friends online with Yahoo! Messenger.
http://im.yahoo.com
--
Want to unsubscribe from this list?
Check out: http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple
