Mailing-List:	contact cygwin-help AT sourceware DOT cygnus DOT com; run by ezmlm
List-Subscribe:	<mailto:cygwin-subscribe AT sources DOT redhat DOT com>
List-Archive:	<http://sources.redhat.com/ml/cygwin/>
List-Post:	<mailto:cygwin AT sources DOT redhat DOT com>
List-Help:	<mailto:cygwin-help AT sources DOT redhat DOT com>, <http://sources.redhat.com/ml/#faqs>
Sender:	cygwin-owner AT sources DOT redhat DOT com
Delivered-To:	mailing list cygwin AT sources DOT redhat DOT com
Date:	Sat, 24 Mar 2001 23:25:00 -0500
From:	Christopher Faylor <cgf AT redhat DOT com>
To:	Cygwin <cygwin AT cygwin DOT com>
Subject:	Re: GCC 2.95.3-1 available for testing -- question for Earnie
Message-ID:	<20010324232500.B22481@redhat.com>
Reply-To:	cygwin AT cygwin DOT com
Mail-Followup-To:	Cygwin <cygwin AT cygwin DOT com>
References:	<20010324213808 DOT A28123 AT redhat DOT com> <20010325041035 DOT 23475 DOT qmail AT web6403 DOT mail DOT yahoo DOT com>
Mime-Version:	1.0
User-Agent:	Mutt/1.3.11i
In-Reply-To:	<20010325041035.23475.qmail@web6403.mail.yahoo.com>; from danny_r_smith_2001@yahoo.co.nz on Sun, Mar 25, 2001 at 04:10:35PM +1200

On Sun, Mar 25, 2001 at 04:10:35PM +1200, Danny Smith wrote:
>--- Christopher Faylor <cgf AT redhat DOT com> wrote: > On Sun, Mar 25, 2001 at
>02:21:07PM +1200, Danny Smith wrote:
>> >> Sorry.  It searches /usr/includw/mingw/g++-3 explicitly.  Doesn't it
>> >> make sense to put the mingw headers there?  Are the headers generic
>> >> enough that this doesn't matter?  
>> >
>> >The g++ headers in cygwin are *identical* to the ones that gcc make install
>> put
>> >in my mingw package.
>> 
>> How have you verified that?  Did you actually diff the directories?
>> 
>I have verified this with for 2.95.3. diff -urpb produces this:
>
>"Only in /d/mingw/include/g++-3: dummy.h"
>where dummy.h is a empty file I put into to verify that diff was working.
>
>But....
>changes involving _IO_fpos_t/_IO_off_t in libio.h (and other public headers) in
>gcc-2.95.3 can cause backward compatability problems (with mingw, not cygwin)
>if we patch the definitions in libio  .cc src files to match the new
>prototypes, which is what it appears that you have done.  Eg.
>istream::seekg(long long) in mingw 2.95.2 has become istream::seekg(long) in
>2.95.3 beacuse of changes in typedef of streampos from __IO_fpos_t to
>__IO_off_t. This problem only arises if we link objects compiled with 2.95.2
>against the 2.95.3 libstdc++ .  I repeat this does not affect cygwin, only the
>__MSVCRT__ version of mingw. 
>
>If -mno-cygwin  wants to retain backward compatabilty (at least until G++-v3
>breaks it in a big way), perhaps mingw headers should be different (ie, revert
>the type changes in libio.h).

AFAIK, I just applied gcc patches that were part of the cygwin net
release to gcc 2.95.3.  Any changes that you see are part of the
standard 2.95.3.

This is YA reason for giving mingw its own include area.

Or, maybe it's another reason for eliminating -mno-cygwin entirely and just going
with a separate i686-pc-mingw-gcc compiler instead.

cgf

--
Want to unsubscribe from this list?
Check out: http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple

- Raw text -