X-Recipient: archive-cygwin AT delorie DOT com
X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-2.0 required=5.0 	tests=BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED,DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,FREEMAIL_FROM,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE,T_TO_NO_BRKTS_FREEMAIL
X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org
Message-ID: <4BD5E165.6070907@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 26 Apr 2010 19:54:29 +0100
From: Dave Korn <dave DOT korn DOT cygwin AT googlemail DOT com>
User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.17 (Windows/20080914)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: cygwin AT cygwin DOT com
Subject: Re: Cygwin's GCC doesn't like this .sa_handler initialization for   some reason
References: <20100425113232 DOT GA11541 AT sbox> <4BD5C311 DOT 2060708 AT redhat DOT com>
In-Reply-To: <4BD5C311.2060708@redhat.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Mailing-List: contact cygwin-help AT cygwin DOT com; run by ezmlm
List-Id: <cygwin.cygwin.com>
List-Subscribe: <mailto:cygwin-subscribe AT cygwin DOT com>
List-Archive: <http://sourceware.org/ml/cygwin/>
List-Post: <mailto:cygwin AT cygwin DOT com>
List-Help: <mailto:cygwin-help AT cygwin DOT com>, <http://sourceware.org/ml/#faqs>
Sender: cygwin-owner AT cygwin DOT com
Mail-Followup-To: cygwin AT cygwin DOT com
Delivered-To: mailing list cygwin AT cygwin DOT com

On 26/04/2010 17:45, Eric Blake wrote:
> [this was originally raised on the libvirt list]
> 
> On 04/25/2010 05:32 AM, Matthias Bolte wrote:
>> +    struct sigaction action_stop;
>>  
>> -    struct sigaction action_stop = {
>> -        .sa_handler = stop
>> -    };
>> +    memset(&action_stop, 0, sizeof action_stop);
>> +
>> +    action_stop.sa_handler = stop;
> 
> This is because on Linux, sa_handler is a macro that expands into an
> access of a named member of a named union, whereas on cygwin, sa_handler
> is a directly named member of an anonymous union.  Is this a gcc bug, or
> should we be changing cygwin/signal.h to follow Linux' lead of using
> macros to access named unions to allow source compatibility, since gcc
> falls flat at performing named initialization of a member of gcc's
> extension of an anonymous union?

  This is the long-standing PR10676 :-(

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=10676

  Given the rate of progress so far, I reckon we should adopt Linux'
workaround.  Hopefully we'll be able to take it back out again someday.

    cheers,
      DaveK


--
Problem reports:       http://cygwin.com/problems.html
FAQ:                   http://cygwin.com/faq/
Documentation:         http://cygwin.com/docs.html
Unsubscribe info:      http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple