Mail Archives: cygwin/2001/01/26/00:24:46
On Thu, Jan 25, 2001 at 04:30:52PM -0600, Mumit Khan wrote:
>On Thu, 25 Jan 2001, Earnie Boyd wrote:
>
>> Matthew Smith wrote:
>> >
>> > Can anyone suggest an elegant way around this?
>> >
>>
>> Fix the code. Remove the redefinitions.
>
>FYI, it's newlib that provides the incorrect declaration. It's one of
>those cases where newlib's declarations don't quite match POSIX/UNIX98,
>but small enough that nobody has bothered to fix those. Mostly has to
>do with signed vs unsigned (eg., size_t vs ssize_t) and those little
>nits. Interestingly enough, someone, quite possibly Joel Scherrill, had
>gone through newlib and fixed most of these, if not all, but only for
>RTEMS!
>
>POSIX:
> ssize_t read (int, void *, size_t);
>
>newlib:
> #ifdef __rtems__
> ssize_t read (int, void *, size_t);
> #else
> int read (int, void *, size_t);
> #endif
>
>Perhaps Chris and/or DJ know why that is the case.
Because the only thing that Joel cares about is RTEMS, basically. He
broke Cygwin builds a couple of times with his changes and, I assume,
rather than try to build Cygwin after a change, opted to just
conditionalize everything.
>When you have a conflict between Glenn Fowler's AT&T AST and another
>library, chances are that AST is doing the right thing.
Probably, but any package that doesn't build because it relies on read
being defined as ssize_t is not exactly portable.
cgf
--
Want to unsubscribe from this list?
Check out: http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple
- Raw text -