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:date:from:to:subject:message-id:reply-to :references:mime-version:content-type:in-reply-to; q=dns; s= default; b=P7QL0dJeEFqQIvSdKfFhxdgEa7Q1YY1Tivu8Mhah0Ft/NqCHyGn6h vrLx7xXxb77XuCD9QzupmworFB97NBDnq68vITaj3lm+lxyNpMgMDuNgS1hj5CtR q0mhNyO9Gl6hQtwZv6i09xpOIcW0KA5nOoovwFaoe2+jfInrQORa7Y= 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:date:from:to:subject:message-id:reply-to :references:mime-version:content-type:in-reply-to; s=default; bh=ZHq1TGMDvlgbBamMwKS46Gr2o+I=; b=qFfecp0KpealBZ6+UnQyl6EJCVNi Y0Yr8qn6TGjO0s2WKXDghv9aQ56s+IrPwPnx0ErSBLl+X+C93UdEOaOOcH3cTIEr hYFML786nA/rfV48bobd44xGqHbct5mb2srC4Xf/jDlQSf5lxTqxeUHHaFiMoHMf xnnyArXFfDGuOIY= 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-Spam-SWARE-Status: No, score=-0.4 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE autolearn=ham version=3.3.2 X-HELO: mho-02-ewr.mailhop.org X-Mail-Handler: Dyn Standard SMTP by Dyn X-Report-Abuse-To: abuse AT dyndns DOT com (see http://www.dyndns.com/services/sendlabs/outbound_abuse.html for abuse reporting information) X-MHO-User: U2FsdGVkX189BrX2cOirza0EdEY1u3by Date: Mon, 28 Oct 2013 13:01:42 -0400 From: Christopher Faylor To: cygwin AT cygwin DOT com Subject: Re: Rebuilding cygwin1.dll - error: "TRANSACTION_ALL_ACCESS" redefined [-Werror] Message-ID: <20131028170142.GA2994@ednor.casa.cgf.cx> Reply-To: cygwin AT cygwin DOT com Mail-Followup-To: cygwin AT cygwin DOT com 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> <526E9418 DOT 9060603 AT cygwin DOT com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <526E9418.9060603@cygwin.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.20 (2009-06-14) On Mon, Oct 28, 2013 at 12:43:04PM -0400, Larry Hall (Cygwin) wrote: >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! ;-) Looks like, with 2 people responding, the votes are now 5 pro, 0 dissenting. Luckily for us we use Diebold voting machines so there is no possibility of error. cgf -- 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