X-Recipient: archive-cygwin AT delorie DOT com DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=sourceware.org; h=list-id :list-unsubscribe:list-subscribe:list-archive:list-post :list-help:sender:message-id:date:from:reply-to:mime-version:to :subject:references:in-reply-to:content-type :content-transfer-encoding; q=dns; s=default; b=o17qVCYc+GqT0L2g tT8MRWtfE/BO76vLIscpgTkg+QUdfLOhAG4LpbE0X/MWSSjoYWgkeWkOpIu6Q5p+ brxZfETPlvWiZYnzmCxF7/jHBU2OvYI4C8d8pHJUmbjw8HAJcVsCcwsHeBC4VYq0 roa++RLuWmAg3kkxYRv7B6XZio0= DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha1; c=relaxed; d=sourceware.org; h=list-id :list-unsubscribe:list-subscribe:list-archive:list-post :list-help:sender:message-id:date:from:reply-to:mime-version:to :subject:references:in-reply-to:content-type :content-transfer-encoding; s=default; bh=82j7JGFNz38ZUwatmJbLie pM0nY=; b=U0+szOufao61WOQ0r9PcH3klH+u9/Ph7fxoaXlmcuy1+s77loL0bvR ITJkXBQoagsQQd4AgidE7ZjHdQjyaeBecqQARnQvDA4Xi2sESeTnC2bqVpmf0wEi meiwPvd3P8WGKXB/wh7bbkS1tSQw8EixBI/C/NCx2mBmXVUh6Tkns= Mailing-List: contact cygwin-help AT cygwin DOT com; run by ezmlm List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: cygwin-owner AT cygwin DOT com Mail-Followup-To: cygwin AT cygwin DOT com Delivered-To: mailing list cygwin AT cygwin DOT com Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; auth=none X-Virus-Found: No X-HELO: vms173003pub.verizon.net Message-id: <526E9418.9060603@cygwin.com> Date: Mon, 28 Oct 2013 12:43:04 -0400 From: "Larry Hall (Cygwin)" Reply-to: cygwin AT cygwin DOT com User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:24.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/24.0.1 MIME-version: 1.0 To: cygwin AT cygwin DOT com Subject: Re: Rebuilding cygwin1.dll - error: "TRANSACTION_ALL_ACCESS" redefined [-Werror] References: <52692BAC DOT 5060800 AT mandriva DOT com> <20131024150921 DOT GB24229 AT calimero DOT vinschen DOT de> <20131026062530 DOT GA5850 AT ednor DOT casa DOT cgf DOT cx> <20131026094704 DOT GA15394 AT calimero DOT vinschen DOT de> <20131027012705 DOT GA1534 AT ednor DOT casa DOT cgf DOT cx> <20131027095159 DOT GA29907 AT calimero DOT vinschen DOT de> In-reply-to: <20131027095159.GA29907@calimero.vinschen.de> Content-type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit On 10/27/2013 5:51 AM, Corinna Vinschen wrote: > On Oct 26 21:27, Christopher Faylor wrote: >> On Sat, Oct 26, 2013 at 11:47:04AM +0200, Corinna Vinschen wrote: >>> On Oct 26 02:25, Christopher Faylor wrote: >>>> On Sat, Oct 26, 2013 at 10:14:01AM +0400, Alexey Pavlov wrote: >>>>> /usr/include/w32api/winnt.h:3541:20: error: previous definition of >>>>> ?struct _EXCEPTION_REGISTRATION_RECORD? >>>>> typedef struct _EXCEPTION_REGISTRATION_RECORD { >>>>> ^ >>>>> In file included from /work/Cygwin/winsup/cygwin/exception.h:15:0, >>>>> from /work/Cygwin/winsup/cygwin/cygtls.cc:20: >>>>> /work/Cygwin/winsup/cygwin/include/exceptions.h:109:17: error: invalid >>>>> type in declaration before ?;? token >>>>> } exception_list; >>>>> ^ >>>>> /work/Cygwin/winsup/cygwin/../Makefile.common:43: recipe for target >>>>> 'cygtls.o' failed >>>>> make[3]: *** [cygtls.o] Error 1 >>>> >>>> Feel free to provide patches. Simple compilation issues do not >>>> require copyright assignment. >>> >>> I applied a patch. The redefinition of _exception_list to >>> _EXCEPTION_REGISTRATION_RECORD for x86_64 was cruft from a very early >>> "just build, goddammit" porting stage. Later on it turned out that >>> x86_64 doesn't use frame based exception handling anyway so all the >>> code using _exception_list is unused on x86_64 anyway. >>> >>> I also changed the public header so that it only >>> applies if !x86_64. >>> >>> That leads to a question: >>> >>> Why on earth do we have a *public* header exposing the exception >>> handling on a certain CPU? This isn't a standard header, neither POSIX >>> nor Linux nor BSD systems have it. >>> >>> If there isn't a compelling reason to keep the header, I would opt >>> for folding the content into the private Cygwin header exception.h >>> and drop the public header entirely. >> >> I think its existence predates me. I vote to nuke it. > > 2 pro votes, 0 dissenting votes. Done. I just hope the voting period > wasn't too short... I demand a recount! ;-) -- Larry _____________________________________________________________________ A: Yes. > Q: Are you sure? >> A: Because it reverses the logical flow of conversation. >>> Q: Why is top posting annoying in email? -- 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