X-Recipient:	archive-cygwin AT delorie DOT com
DomainKey-Signature:	a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=sourceware.org; h=list-id
	:list-unsubscribe:list-subscribe:list-archive:list-post
	:list-help:sender:message-id:date:from:reply-to:mime-version:to
	:subject:references:in-reply-to:content-type
	:content-transfer-encoding; q=dns; s=default; b=o17qVCYc+GqT0L2g
	tT8MRWtfE/BO76vLIscpgTkg+QUdfLOhAG4LpbE0X/MWSSjoYWgkeWkOpIu6Q5p+
	brxZfETPlvWiZYnzmCxF7/jHBU2OvYI4C8d8pHJUmbjw8HAJcVsCcwsHeBC4VYq0
	roa++RLuWmAg3kkxYRv7B6XZio0=
DKIM-Signature:	v=1; a=rsa-sha1; c=relaxed; d=sourceware.org; h=list-id
	:list-unsubscribe:list-subscribe:list-archive:list-post
	:list-help:sender:message-id:date:from:reply-to:mime-version:to
	:subject:references:in-reply-to:content-type
	:content-transfer-encoding; s=default; bh=82j7JGFNz38ZUwatmJbLie
	pM0nY=; b=U0+szOufao61WOQ0r9PcH3klH+u9/Ph7fxoaXlmcuy1+s77loL0bvR
	ITJkXBQoagsQQd4AgidE7ZjHdQjyaeBecqQARnQvDA4Xi2sESeTnC2bqVpmf0wEi
	meiwPvd3P8WGKXB/wh7bbkS1tSQw8EixBI/C/NCx2mBmXVUh6Tkns=
Mailing-List:	contact cygwin-help AT cygwin DOT com; run by ezmlm
List-Id:	<cygwin.cygwin.com>
List-Subscribe:	<mailto:cygwin-subscribe AT cygwin DOT com>
List-Archive:	<http://sourceware.org/ml/cygwin/>
List-Post:	<mailto:cygwin AT cygwin DOT com>
List-Help:	<mailto:cygwin-help AT cygwin DOT com>, <http://sourceware.org/ml/#faqs>
Sender:	cygwin-owner AT cygwin DOT com
Mail-Followup-To:	cygwin AT cygwin DOT com
Delivered-To:	mailing list cygwin AT cygwin DOT com
Authentication-Results:	sourceware.org; auth=none
X-Virus-Found:	No
X-HELO:	vms173003pub.verizon.net
Message-id:	<526E9418.9060603@cygwin.com>
Date:	Mon, 28 Oct 2013 12:43:04 -0400
From:	"Larry Hall (Cygwin)" <reply-to-list-only-lh AT cygwin DOT com>
Reply-to:	cygwin AT cygwin DOT com
User-Agent:	Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:24.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/24.0.1
MIME-version:	1.0
To:	cygwin AT cygwin DOT com
Subject:	Re: Rebuilding cygwin1.dll - error: "TRANSACTION_ALL_ACCESS" redefined [-Werror]
References:	<52692BAC DOT 5060800 AT mandriva DOT com> <20131024150921 DOT GB24229 AT calimero DOT vinschen DOT de> <CABEPuQJrD6e2xy18utjm2WqAoVc6seAKR88ocWhiqot3W54m5g AT mail DOT gmail DOT com> <CABEPuQLku+UFmoF2Wb6dUBvUEQw8sbmgG4mv-UiMgdSC=t+0TQ AT mail DOT gmail DOT com> <20131026062530 DOT GA5850 AT ednor DOT casa DOT cgf DOT cx> <20131026094704 DOT GA15394 AT calimero DOT vinschen DOT de> <20131027012705 DOT GA1534 AT ednor DOT casa DOT cgf DOT cx> <20131027095159 DOT GA29907 AT calimero DOT vinschen DOT de>
In-reply-to:	<20131027095159.GA29907@calimero.vinschen.de>

On 10/27/2013 5:51 AM, Corinna Vinschen wrote:
> On Oct 26 21:27, Christopher Faylor wrote:
>> On Sat, Oct 26, 2013 at 11:47:04AM +0200, Corinna Vinschen wrote:
>>> On Oct 26 02:25, Christopher Faylor wrote:
>>>> On Sat, Oct 26, 2013 at 10:14:01AM +0400, Alexey Pavlov wrote:
>>>>> /usr/include/w32api/winnt.h:3541:20: error: previous definition of
>>>>> ?struct _EXCEPTION_REGISTRATION_RECORD?
>>>>>      typedef struct _EXCEPTION_REGISTRATION_RECORD {
>>>>>                     ^
>>>>> In file included from /work/Cygwin/winsup/cygwin/exception.h:15:0,
>>>>>                  from /work/Cygwin/winsup/cygwin/cygtls.cc:20:
>>>>> /work/Cygwin/winsup/cygwin/include/exceptions.h:109:17: error: invalid
>>>>> type in declaration before ?;? token
>>>>> } exception_list;
>>>>>                  ^
>>>>> /work/Cygwin/winsup/cygwin/../Makefile.common:43: recipe for target
>>>>> 'cygtls.o' failed
>>>>> make[3]: *** [cygtls.o] Error 1
>>>>
>>>> Feel free to provide patches.  Simple compilation issues do not
>>>> require copyright assignment.
>>>
>>> I applied a patch.  The redefinition of _exception_list to
>>> _EXCEPTION_REGISTRATION_RECORD for x86_64 was cruft from a very early
>>> "just build, goddammit" porting stage.  Later on it turned out that
>>> x86_64 doesn't use frame based exception handling anyway so all the
>>> code using _exception_list is unused on x86_64 anyway.
>>>
>>> I also changed the public header <exceptions.h> so that it only
>>> applies if !x86_64.
>>>
>>> That leads to a question:
>>>
>>> Why on earth do we have a *public* header exposing the exception
>>> handling on a certain CPU?  This isn't a standard header, neither POSIX
>>> nor Linux nor BSD systems have it.
>>>
>>> If there isn't a compelling reason to keep the header, I would opt
>>> for folding the content into the private Cygwin header exception.h
>>> and drop the public header entirely.
>>
>> I think its existence predates me.  I vote to nuke it.
>
> 2 pro votes, 0 dissenting votes.  Done.  I just hope the voting period
> wasn't too short...

I demand a recount! ;-)

-- 
Larry

_____________________________________________________________________

A: Yes.
 > Q: Are you sure?
 >> A: Because it reverses the logical flow of conversation.
 >>> Q: Why is top posting annoying in email?

--
Problem reports:       http://cygwin.com/problems.html
FAQ:                   http://cygwin.com/faq/
Documentation:         http://cygwin.com/docs.html
Unsubscribe info:      http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple

- Raw text -