Subject: Re: I: gcc ... -U_WIN32 ... may cause problems
From: [email-masked] (Larry Hall RFK Partners Inc)

5 Sep 1998 02:20:54 -0700
Message-ID: <[email-masked]>
References: [email-masked] (Larry Hall RFK Partners Inc)
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
To: Mumit Khan <[email-masked]>, [email-masked]

At 07:18 PM 9/1/98 -0500, Mumit Khan wrote:
>On Mon, 31 Aug 1998, Geoffrey Noer wrote:
>
>> 
>> Perhaps -Dunix should be added to the define list whenever
>> __CYGWIN32__ is defined?  Linux includes -Dunix and -Asystem(posix) in
>> CPP_PREDEFINES (looking at gcc/config/i386/linux.h).
>> 
>
>I see no problem in cygwin32 specs defining "unix", but I have yet to
>see a good argument for getting rid of _WIN32 from x86-win32 targets,
>especially from mingw32.
>
>So far I've seen only a 2 or 3 posts suggesting we get rid of WIN32 
>(Earnie Boyd and someone else -- Larry Hall? Sorry, I can't remember), 
>but all of these were low on details as to why. If I'm missing a few 
>posts that you believe are pertinent, please feel free to shout.
>
>Granted that lots of code out there IMO incorrectly uses _WIN32 where it
>should be using _MSC_VER or BORLANDC or, better yet, autoconf style macros 
>(or some other similar mechanism) to define capabilities of host/target 
>system; I think over time we should be getting those packages fixed instead 
>of getting rid of WIN32 and temporarily masking the problem.
>
>Regards,
>Mumit
>

The best argument I have for getting rid of _WIN32 from cygwin and mingw is 
that MS docs claim _WIN32 is MS compiler specific.  It says nothing about 
WIN32 as far as I know.  Since this statement has been made, it seems a 
shame to make such a compiler specific define more generic, especially 
since it can be used in code to determine whether compiler/platform 
specific things need to be considered.  Perhaps _MSC_VER can be used for
this too but then again, what's the advantage of making _WIN32 generic,
especially when WIN32, if needed, is available and even more intuitive? 

Larry Hall                              [email-masked]
RFK Partners, Inc.                      (781) 239-1053
8 Grove Street                          (781) 239-1655 - FAX
Wellesley, MA  02482-7797               http://www.rfk.com
-
For help on using this list (especially unsubscribing), send a message to
"[email-masked]" with one line of text: "help".