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
Message-ID:	<3B7AED5F.7050603@ece.gatech.edu>
Date:	Wed, 15 Aug 2001 17:45:03 -0400
From:	Charles Wilson <cwilson AT ece DOT gatech DOT edu>
User-Agent:	Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; en-US; rv:0.9.2) Gecko/20010713
X-Accept-Language:	en-us
MIME-Version:	1.0
To:	CD List <Cygwin-Developers AT Cygwin DOT Com>
Subject:	Re: Does CVS build?
References:	<20010815132450 DOT A1468 AT dothill DOT com> <3B7AEC05 DOT 7FBF0C8C AT yahoo DOT com> <20010815155157 DOT B20199 AT redhat DOT com> <20010815162916 DOT A28118 AT redhat DOT com> <20010815171031 DOT A29030 AT redhat DOT com> <3B7B0796 DOT 2DF865D1 AT yahoo DOT com>

Earnie Boyd wrote:

> Christopher Faylor wrote:
> 
>>On Wed, Aug 15, 2001 at 04:29:16PM -0400, Christopher Faylor wrote:
>>
>>>On Wed, Aug 15, 2001 at 03:51:57PM -0400, Christopher Faylor wrote:
>>>
>>>>>This is caused by the following patch.  What's up Chris?
>>>>>
>>>>>Mon Aug 13 22:26:01 2001  Christopher Faylor <cgf AT cygnus DOT com>
>>>>>
>>>>>       * libc/include/sys/errno.h: Declare sys_errlist and sys_nerr, >under
>>>>>       Cygwin.
>>>>>
>>>>WIP.  I know that you will all use your substantial programming skills
>>>>to work around this problem while libiberty is being fixed.
>>>>
>>>Here is a libiberty patch to try.  configure has to be regenerated after applying
>>>this patch.
>>>
>>If can get verification that this works, I'll check it into sourceware.
>>
>>
> 
> The patch at least causes the build to complete.  I noticed a few
> warnings flashing by that need to be further investigated.


Which autoconf were you using to regenerate configure?

--Chuck

P.S. another related URL:

"autoconf 2.13 -> 2.50 for libiberty in gcc-2.95.3"
http://mail.gnu.org/pipermail/bug-autoconf/2001-June/000751.html

But I think these changes force libiberty to be 2.52 ONLY, and don't 
preserve back-compatibility with 2.13 (I'm not sure, though).

- Raw text -