This is the mail archive of the
gdb-patches@sourceware.org
mailing list for the GDB project.
Re: [MinGW-w64]Build gdb/ctf.c failed
- From: Eli Zaretskii <eliz at gnu dot org>
- To: Kai Tietz <ktietz70 at googlemail dot com>
- Cc: asmwarrior at gmail dot com, tromey at redhat dot com, yao at codesourcery dot com, gdb-patches at sourceware dot org
- Date: Mon, 25 Mar 2013 10:28:25 +0200
- Subject: Re: [MinGW-w64]Build gdb/ctf.c failed
- References: <83ip4s4ixc dot fsf at gnu dot org> <1363407692-18959-1-git-send-email-yao at codesourcery dot com> <1363407692-18959-4-git-send-email-yao at codesourcery dot com> <CADPb22RwSq0iv_gQu5PSGezQoUy0ve16M2hmL51HvM19v0M5Ow at mail dot gmail dot com> <51492077 dot 30307 at codesourcery dot com> <83sj3qyogk dot fsf at gnu dot org> <87vc8m7z1d dot fsf at fleche dot redhat dot com> <514FA117 dot 9030604 at gmail dot com> <83hajz3oef dot fsf at gnu dot org> <CAEwic4Y020-LqwtNeYFXn3oQvk5fWBFm1T5ZoAmwqPSpD=PASg at mail dot gmail dot com>
- Reply-to: Eli Zaretskii <eliz at gnu dot org>
> Date: Mon, 25 Mar 2013 09:06:05 +0100
> From: Kai Tietz <ktietz70@googlemail.com>
> Cc: asmwarrior <asmwarrior@gmail.com>, tromey@redhat.com, yao@codesourcery.com,
> gdb-patches@sourceware.org
>
> 2013/3/25 Eli Zaretskii <eliz@gnu.org>:
> >> Date: Mon, 25 Mar 2013 08:57:59 +0800
> >> From: asmwarrior <asmwarrior@gmail.com>
> >> CC: Eli Zaretskii <eliz@gnu.org>, Yao Qi <yao@codesourcery.com>,
> >> gdb-patches@sourceware.org
> >>
> >> I found that _mkdir was declared in the file: direct.h in MinGW-w64 SDKs:
> >> _CRTIMP int __cdecl _mkdir(const char *_Path);
> >
> > Isn't _mkdir also declared in io.h?
>
> No, it isn't.
Too bad. Gratuitous differences between the different MinGW variants
are likely to become maintenance headaches in the long run. Like in
this case.
> It is a flaw to declare it there. The unistd.h header is a POSIX
> one. _mkdir is for sure no POSIX variant, so its declaration
> doesn't belong somewhere else.
Posix header files can very well (and do) have non-Posix stuff, if
that stuff is guarded by suitable preprocessor conditionals that make
it disappear when compiled with the -std= compiler switch which
requires Posix without extensions. So I'm surprised this argument is
being brought up here.