From: lhall AT rfk DOT com (Larry Hall RFK Partners Inc) Subject: Re: I: gcc ... -U_WIN32 ... may cause problems 5 Sep 1998 02:20:54 -0700 Message-ID: <3.0.5.32.19980902145002.00b1c2b0.cygnus.gnu-win32@pop.ma.ultranet.com> References: lhall AT rfk DOT com (Larry Hall RFK Partners Inc) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" To: Mumit Khan , gnu-win32 AT cygnus DOT com 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 lhall AT rfk DOT com 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 "gnu-win32-request AT cygnus DOT com" with one line of text: "help".