Mailing-List: contact cygwin-developers-help AT cygwin DOT com; run by ezmlm
List-Subscribe: <mailto:cygwin-developers-subscribe AT cygwin DOT com>
List-Archive: <http://sources.redhat.com/ml/cygwin-developers/>
List-Post: <mailto:cygwin-developers AT cygwin DOT com>
List-Help: <mailto:cygwin-developers-help AT cygwin DOT com>, <http://sources.redhat.com/ml/#faqs>
Sender: cygwin-developers-owner AT cygwin DOT com
Delivered-To: mailing list cygwin-developers AT cygwin DOT com
Date: Tue, 17 Dec 2002 10:37:45 -0500
From: Christopher Faylor <cgf AT redhat DOT com>
To: cygwin-developers AT cygwin DOT com
Subject: Re: building the gcc-3.2-3 bootstrap fails on libstdc++-v3
Message-ID: <20021217153745.GB18369@redhat.com>
Reply-To: cygwin-developers AT cygwin DOT com
Mail-Followup-To: cygwin-developers AT cygwin DOT com
References: <20021217140520 DOT K19104 AT cygbert DOT vinschen DOT de> <Pine DOT WNT DOT 4 DOT 44 DOT 0212171445510 DOT 272-100000 AT algeria DOT intern DOT net>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <Pine.WNT.4.44.0212171445510.272-100000@algeria.intern.net>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.1i

On Tue, Dec 17, 2002 at 02:51:24PM +0100, Thomas Pfaff wrote:
>
>
>On Tue, 17 Dec 2002, Corinna Vinschen wrote:
>
>> On Tue, Dec 17, 2002 at 10:12:47AM +0100, Thomas Pfaff wrote:
>> > On Mon, 16 Dec 2002, Christopher Faylor wrote:
>> >
>> > > On Mon, Dec 16, 2002 at 03:26:27AM -0800, James Michael DuPont wrote:
>> > > >As promised, I have started to check the releases
>> > > >of cygwin by bootstrapping them.
>> > > >This one got pretty far, all the way to libstdc++-v3.
>> > > >
>> > > >The error is :
>> > > >../../../../include/getopt.h:115: declaration of C function `int
>> > > >getopt()'
>> > > >   conflicts with
>> > > >/usr/include/sys/unistd.h:125: previous declaration `int getopt(int,
>> > > >char*   const*, const char*)' here
>> > >
>> > > In case it isn't clear, I *do not care* about this problem. I am able to
>> > > [more venting]
>> > > How many times do I have to say this???
>> >
>> > Chris,
>> >
>> > IMHO the easiest way to fix this is to remove the getopt prototype from
>> > unistd.h and include getopt.h instead. This will define HAVE_DECL_GETOPT
>> > and the build will not fail. I might create a patch if you agree.
>>
>> Unfortunately this is newlib.  Adding the getopt prototype unconditionally
>> in July was obviously not combined with testing this on Cygwin. :-(
>>
>> AFAICS, the prototypes should be in a `#ifndef __CYGWIN__' bracket or
>> (better) in a `#ifndef __GETOPT_H__' bracket plus defining __GETOPT_H__.
>>
>
>Why not define
>
>#ifndef HAVE_DECL_GETOPT
>#define HAVE_DECL_GETOPT 1
>#endif
>
>in unistd.h likewise to getopt.h ?

Why not discuss this in the proper mailing list?  cygwin-developers is not
a gcc discussion list.

Please terminate this thread in cygwin-developers now.  It is inappropriate
here.

cgf