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:subject:from:to:references:message-id:date
	:mime-version:in-reply-to:content-type; q=dns; s=default; b=d58C
	1Yahmih48oR6kGG5HyWDw9K7oachIG4CNZuZMdbfrjjERBOJqITswhWuMZM8NkQ0
	qfCduk74irUEpLKxDV1PY5LwgBlc7GlTHDZppQg5kY29hN4s4ZKPdd1nQwsboaar
	oOkxBJOaIxGBq/fWRWgltVYO50FnzkY+J9EPz8I=
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:subject:from:to:references:message-id:date
	:mime-version:in-reply-to:content-type; s=default; bh=Pnd5XuXpkz
	kI3xREZooA3JDrLHE=; b=G5ki67EIRCuHtXK+/Xx1vMOudA1844TEsdPPQa3fU4
	4ejPwIBrz0wnah8SA1FcZ6iNxt1JOBPNYSIFRIIw2PJYm8nL80aPjUOO8T43uwxn
	ZFK2pnooqpYvQZByaKbSEkadapaSEqpfy5Rgacxa4h7OzX2VivEfq6p6HwFqVhkU
	g=
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
Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; auth=none
X-Spam-SWARE-Status: No, score=-1.6 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,FREEMAIL_ENVFROM_END_DIGIT,FREEMAIL_FROM,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE,SPF_PASS autolearn=no version=3.3.2 spammy=Hx-spam-relays-external:sk:broadba, H*RU:sk:broadba, H*UA:x64, H*UA:Win64
X-HELO: mail-lj1-f182.google.com
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;        d=gmail.com; s=20161025;        h=subject:from:to:references:autocrypt:message-id:date:user-agent         :mime-version:in-reply-to;        bh=SNHQFZI6EvNWAqiSzsDaLib3wJZQh/dJE256JvcPonA=;        b=Jqpcx4vIrWOIqzQ58lufpMK30wjr7gQRNpFXgL8PNvF3J5rRq53s48qtq9yAPly4Mb         mmSEx4I/gIy+uwvL5BLVaps1Gv81JDgNPryjLat0XkG30UQhcRogZG0FEN1Ki3sUCJ8u         0Yz3i5f/3VhsS7XCzPxPHvnCeAP/yiUFU8ucn4mdOA7JiAh/iZvhHTdnOBJXoK74JKtJ         L5ZzYAbT2IzhbQWAGR3+1IuxG7yDWQ6UtoTe7j/kj3e/Qs5lQonV+3P8Ud08DuS5d8D0         JD5M52cj3KCbnbMEFIkYRdJRFeHYG0uVEiEAwT/iCzSoWcN789y2QWq/tg3QFV2HCuXw         SFVA==
Subject: Re: Weird mismatch between cdefs and stdatomic
From: LRN <lrn1986 AT gmail DOT com>
To: cygwin AT cygwin DOT com
References: <41073a89-b446-8051-faab-badef20bddfc AT gmail DOT com>
Message-ID: <3da40be0-c91a-27c3-ac41-8195e63e5e9c@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 30 Jan 2019 10:15:54 +0300
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64; rv:60.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/60.4.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <41073a89-b446-8051-faab-badef20bddfc@gmail.com>
Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha256; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="3cB6QzQKgiE5Hn6KHSYQlSS4mQOp28FMo"
X-IsSubscribed: yes

--3cB6QzQKgiE5Hn6KHSYQlSS4mQOp28FMo
Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="VCKQLfgqv2mOfvrIza6aseFx47m3gUH2a";
 protected-headers="v1"
From: LRN <lrn1986 AT gmail DOT com>
To: cygwin AT cygwin DOT com
Message-ID: <3da40be0-c91a-27c3-ac41-8195e63e5e9c AT gmail DOT com>
Subject: Re: Weird mismatch between cdefs and stdatomic


--VCKQLfgqv2mOfvrIza6aseFx47m3gUH2a
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Language: en-US
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

On 28.01.2019 17:02, LRN wrote:
> This[0] and this[1]. One header checks for atomic C/CXX extensions *and* =
for
> the presence of a C++ compiler, while the other only checks for extension=
s.
>=20
> The result is that the _Atomic() macro is *not* defined in cdefs.h when
> compiled with C++, but the stdatomic.h atomic macros assume that it is, a=
nd try
> to access the "__val" struct member, with predictable and sad results.
>=20
> I just stumbled upon this while compiling OpenSSL, and wanted to see if a=
nyone
> else encountered this problem.
>=20

There is also a "!defined(__STDC_VERSION__) || __STDC_VERSION__ < 201112L"
condition in cdefs.h that is not reproduced in stdatomic.h. So my initial g=
uess
seems to have been incorrect - it's not about C vs C++ compiler, it's about=
 C11
vs C99 compiler modes.


--VCKQLfgqv2mOfvrIza6aseFx47m3gUH2a--

--3cB6QzQKgiE5Hn6KHSYQlSS4mQOp28FMo
Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc"
Content-Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="signature.asc"

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
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=V6vo
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

--3cB6QzQKgiE5Hn6KHSYQlSS4mQOp28FMo--