Mailing-List:	contact cygwin-developers-help AT sourceware DOT cygnus DOT com; run by ezmlm
List-Subscribe:	<mailto:cygwin-developers-subscribe AT sources DOT redhat DOT com>
List-Archive:	<http://sources.redhat.com/ml/cygwin-developers/>
List-Post:	<mailto:cygwin-developers AT sources DOT redhat DOT com>
List-Help:	<mailto:cygwin-developers-help AT sources DOT redhat DOT com>, <http://sources.redhat.com/ml/#faqs>
Sender:	cygwin-developers-owner AT sources DOT redhat DOT com
Delivered-To:	mailing list cygwin-developers AT sources DOT redhat DOT com
Date:	Fri, 15 Jun 2001 12:13:16 -0400
From:	Chris Faylor <cgf AT redhat DOT com>
To:	Corinna Vinschen <vinschen AT redhat DOT com>
Cc:	cygwin-developers AT cygwin DOT com
Subject:	Re: [LONG MAIL]: The story of the tiny TAPE_GET_MEDIA_PARAMETERS searching the man in the moon
Message-ID:	<20010615121316.A15646@redhat.com>
Mail-Followup-To:	Corinna Vinschen <vinschen AT redhat DOT com>,
	cygwin-developers AT cygwin DOT com
References:	<20010615123907 DOT C324 AT cygbert DOT vinschen DOT de> <20010615110027 DOT B15095 AT redhat DOT com> <20010615171439 DOT M324 AT cygbert DOT vinschen DOT de> <20010615111627 DOT D15179 AT redhat DOT com> <20010615181008 DOT N324 AT cygbert DOT vinschen DOT de>
Mime-Version:	1.0
User-Agent:	Mutt/1.3.11i
In-Reply-To:	<20010615181008.N324@cygbert.vinschen.de>; from vinschen@redhat.com on Fri, Jun 15, 2001 at 06:10:08PM +0200

On Fri, Jun 15, 2001 at 06:10:08PM +0200, Corinna Vinschen wrote:
>On Fri, Jun 15, 2001 at 11:16:27AM -0400, Chris Faylor wrote:
>> On Fri, Jun 15, 2001 at 05:14:39PM +0200, Corinna Vinschen wrote:
>> >On Fri, Jun 15, 2001 at 11:00:27AM -0400, Chris Faylor wrote:
>> >> On Fri, Jun 15, 2001 at 12:39:07PM +0200, Corinna Vinschen wrote:
>> >> >At least the current native gcc-2.95.3 doesn't have it. Otherwise
>> >> >mt would have used the same wrong value of 28.
>> >> 
>> >> I use 2.95.3 to build the DLL.  I use the released gcc to build everything.
>> >
>> >Native or cross?
>> 
>> linux.
>
>So, when the result is different using the same winnt.h (which
>excludes that an explicit structure packing is different) and
>the result is different using the same compiler version on
>two different hosts, isn't it very likely that the structure
>packing algorithm in gcc >= 2.95.3 is somehow related to the host
>instead of to the target by mistake? Or do I overrate the
>phenomenon?
>
>We could workaround that of course by setting an explicit
>
>#define pack(push,8)
>...
>#define pack(pop)
>
>in winnt.h but that seems not right to me. The original WinNT.h
>from the Platform SDK doesn't contain that either.

I *don't know* what the problem is.  I would appreciate it if you
or someone else would track it down.

This doesn't rely on any special knowledge that only I have so I
think we can get insight from cygwin-developers.  I've Cc'ed them.

cgf

- Raw text -