> From: Bruno Haible
> Date: Thu, 27 Apr 2017 19:03:35 +0200
>
> Thanks for the report and suggested fix.
>
> The #ifdefology here seems a bit fragile to me (will likely break in other
> forks of mingw), therefore I'm using an Autoconf test instead:
I only know of 2 flavors of MinGW (and wish t
Hi Eli,
> Building the recent pretest of Texinfo 6.4 with mingw.org's MinGW
> fails:
>
> gcc -static-libgcc -DHAVE_CONFIG_H -I. -I../..-Id:/usr/include -O2
> -gdwarf-4 -g3 -MT mbchar.o -MD -MP -MF $depbase.Tpo -c -o mbchar.o mbchar.c
> &&\
> mv -f $depbase.Tpo $depbase.Po
>
Building the recent pretest of Texinfo 6.4 with mingw.org's MinGW
fails:
gcc -static-libgcc -DHAVE_CONFIG_H -I. -I../..-Id:/usr/include -O2
-gdwarf-4 -g3 -MT mbchar.o -MD -MP -MF $depbase.Tpo -c -o mbchar.o mbchar.c &&\
mv -f $depbase.Tpo $depbase.Po
In file included from d:\u
Hi Paul,
On Wed, 26 Apr 2017, Paul Eggert wrote:
> Tim Rice wrote:
> > Sad to hear gnulib doesn't care about C89. UnixWare (a currently shipping
> > product) has a C89 compiler.
>
> That should be OK as UnixWare's supplier also supports GCC, and recommends GCC
> for compiling Gnu-style applicat
Hi Paul,
> > if we want a sane behaviour, we have no choice than to override stat()
> > and fstat()
>
> What a pain. Would it be limited to just those two? For example, is there a
> system call like utimensat that lets you set a file's timestamps?
It's the *utimens* test failures that brought u
Tim Rice wrote:
> UnixWare (a currently shipping product) has a C89 compiler.
This product appears to be of zero relevance in the market: I haven't seen any
reference to it in mailing lists or bug reports since ca. 1997.
Currently shipping? The version number is at 7.1.4 since 2004 [1], and the
"
