Mailing-List: contact cygwin-developers-help AT sourceware DOT cygnus DOT com; run by ezmlm List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: cygwin-developers-owner AT sources DOT redhat DOT com Delivered-To: mailing list cygwin-developers AT sources DOT redhat DOT com Date: Fri, 15 Jun 2001 12:13:16 -0400 From: Chris Faylor To: Corinna Vinschen Cc: cygwin-developers AT cygwin DOT com Subject: Re: [LONG MAIL]: The story of the tiny TAPE_GET_MEDIA_PARAMETERS searching the man in the moon Message-ID: <20010615121316.A15646@redhat.com> Mail-Followup-To: Corinna Vinschen , cygwin-developers AT cygwin DOT com References: <20010615123907 DOT C324 AT cygbert DOT vinschen DOT de> <20010615110027 DOT B15095 AT redhat DOT com> <20010615171439 DOT M324 AT cygbert DOT vinschen DOT de> <20010615111627 DOT D15179 AT redhat DOT com> <20010615181008 DOT N324 AT cygbert DOT vinschen DOT de> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline User-Agent: Mutt/1.3.11i In-Reply-To: <20010615181008.N324@cygbert.vinschen.de>; from vinschen@redhat.com on Fri, Jun 15, 2001 at 06:10:08PM +0200 On Fri, Jun 15, 2001 at 06:10:08PM +0200, Corinna Vinschen wrote: >On Fri, Jun 15, 2001 at 11:16:27AM -0400, Chris Faylor wrote: >> On Fri, Jun 15, 2001 at 05:14:39PM +0200, Corinna Vinschen wrote: >> >On Fri, Jun 15, 2001 at 11:00:27AM -0400, Chris Faylor wrote: >> >> On Fri, Jun 15, 2001 at 12:39:07PM +0200, Corinna Vinschen wrote: >> >> >At least the current native gcc-2.95.3 doesn't have it. Otherwise >> >> >mt would have used the same wrong value of 28. >> >> >> >> I use 2.95.3 to build the DLL. I use the released gcc to build everything. >> > >> >Native or cross? >> >> linux. > >So, when the result is different using the same winnt.h (which >excludes that an explicit structure packing is different) and >the result is different using the same compiler version on >two different hosts, isn't it very likely that the structure >packing algorithm in gcc >= 2.95.3 is somehow related to the host >instead of to the target by mistake? Or do I overrate the >phenomenon? > >We could workaround that of course by setting an explicit > >#define pack(push,8) >... >#define pack(pop) > >in winnt.h but that seems not right to me. The original WinNT.h >from the Platform SDK doesn't contain that either. I *don't know* what the problem is. I would appreciate it if you or someone else would track it down. This doesn't rely on any special knowledge that only I have so I think we can get insight from cygwin-developers. I've Cc'ed them. cgf