Hi,
I agree with you I think there is a bug. My question was not on what the
definition of X_OK is but why it is as indicated by robert collins.
As a matter of fact, to end with mico, I only made the modification
indicated in my other mail and the compilation posed no other problem.
So I return to omniORB.
J. J. Farrell wrote:
>> From: "Robert Collins" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>>
>>> From: bruno patin (travail) [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
>>>
>>> as a matter of fact, I'll speak of Mico. There is at least
>>> one problem
>>> with the porting. In the file mico/include/mico/os-misc.h,
>>> there is in
>>> an enumerate an initialisation with the value X_OK. But the file
>>> unistd.h (in sys) define this value as : define X_OK
>>> _cygwin_X_OK and it
>>> is not an integer so you have an error at the compilation of
>>> the file in
>>> mico that include os-misc.h. I replace X_OK directly by the
>>> value of one
>>> (not a great feat and subject to other error I know). But what is the
>>> meaning of this define of X_OK in cygwin ?
>>
>> It's exported from libcygwin.a
>> (look in unistd.h - you should see
>> extern const unsigned _cygwin_X_OK;)
>
>
> That looks like an implementation bug - X_OK is supposed to be
> defined as a constant in <unistd.h>.
>
>
> --
> Want to unsubscribe from this list?
> Check out: http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple
>
>
>
--
Want to unsubscribe from this list?
Check out: http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple
