Mailing-List:	contact cygwin-apps-help AT sourceware DOT cygnus DOT com; run by ezmlm
Sender:	cygwin-apps-owner AT sourceware DOT cygnus DOT com
List-Subscribe:	<mailto:cygwin-apps-subscribe AT sources DOT redhat DOT com>
List-Archive:	<http://sources.redhat.com/ml/cygwin-apps/>
List-Post:	<mailto:cygwin-apps AT sources DOT redhat DOT com>
List-Help:	<mailto:cygwin-apps-help AT sources DOT redhat DOT com>, <http://sources.redhat.com/lists.html#faqs>
Delivered-To:	mailing list cygwin-apps AT sources DOT redhat DOT com
Message-ID:	<016501c0af57$8ac29f40$0200a8c0@lifelesswks>
From:	"Robert Collins" <robert DOT collins AT itdomain DOT com DOT au>
To:	<cygwin-apps AT cygwin DOT com>
References:	<20010317172830 DOT A24346 AT redhat DOT com> <011b01c0af4b$62f44ec0$0200a8c0 AT voyager> <014301c0af4f$ec386550$0200a8c0 AT lifelesswks> <20010317215828 DOT A28473 AT redhat DOT com>
Subject:	Re: gcc 2.95.3-1 and -mwin32
Date:	Sun, 18 Mar 2001 14:00:07 +1100
MIME-Version:	1.0
X-Priority:	3
X-MSMail-Priority:	Normal
X-Mailer:	Microsoft Outlook Express 5.50.4133.2400
X-MimeOLE:	Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4133.2400
X-OriginalArrivalTime:	18 Mar 2001 02:54:23.0669 (UTC) FILETIME=[BCD7EE50:01C0AF56]

----- Original Message -----
From: "Christopher Faylor" <cgf AT redhat DOT com>
To: <cygwin-apps AT cygwin DOT com>
Sent: Sunday, March 18, 2001 1:58 PM
Subject: Re: gcc 2.95.3-1 and -mwin32


> On Sun, Mar 18, 2001 at 01:05:34PM +1100, Robert Collins wrote:
> >> w32api/windef.h
> >>
> >> #ifndef WIN32
> >> #define WIN32
> >> #endif
> >> #ifndef _WIN32
> >> #define _WIN32
> >> #endif
> >>
> >> Comments?
> >
> >I don't think the software being ported should ever define WIN32
itself.
> >It'd be like defining glibc_version (or whatever that value is
called)
> >yourself.
> >
> >Setting it for gcc is one thing, and quite appropriate. As far as
w32api
> >goes, I haven't investigated and thus won't comment..
>
> Including /usr/include/w32api and not allowing the header files to
define
> WIN32 constants would be equivalent to not including
/usr/include/w32api
> at all.  The users would get confusing error messages.
>
> Microsoft's windows headers seem to define WIN32 constants in a number
of
> places.  I don't see anything wrong with this practice.
>
> cgf
>

I don't see anything wrong with w32api defining WIN32 either - I was
arguing against changing the current practice. Probably worded badly
though..

Rob

- Raw text -