From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 94052 invoked by alias); 23 May 2017 09:53:50 -0000 Mailing-List: contact gdb-patches-help@sourceware.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: gdb-patches-owner@sourceware.org Received: (qmail 93141 invoked by uid 89); 23 May 2017 09:53:49 -0000 Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; auth=none X-Virus-Found: No X-Spam-SWARE-Status: No, score=-1.6 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,KAM_LAZY_DOMAIN_SECURITY,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE autolearn=no version=3.3.2 spammy=HCc:D*ca, H*r:sk:31.2017 X-HELO: mail-wm0-f50.google.com Received: from mail-wm0-f50.google.com (HELO mail-wm0-f50.google.com) (74.125.82.50) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.93/v0.84-503-g423c35a) with ESMTP; Tue, 23 May 2017 09:53:48 +0000 Received: by mail-wm0-f50.google.com with SMTP id m7so13105029wmg.0 for ; Tue, 23 May 2017 02:53:51 -0700 (PDT) X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:subject:to:references:cc:from:message-id:date :user-agent:mime-version:in-reply-to:content-transfer-encoding; bh=fJQb7aEssO4n5OcwTiNwkUsAzHcEsdrT8c3WiSp2g+k=; b=RARJKorXJ/w2DYVlzh18uQp+mFUSm4fW3QAxS7RW5l6c8jgApAZMeTqK9UAuiuA1DL Jk25xXPUXAEuZWck1xenkbyyG98Ya1iCC9Kbh10KhH3mJIHGElirGnYTF1AKp38aQUAy Q+hsEInMA2kXIsXG4DRCg9LsZ9nllisa+C1cQ7lb2t2OkFD8dCpA1n0gtqoGYDqvbCKw SZsO/q0p26hKipACYhQCX8dOD6vhxH5rPAMRVRCPqoovTkDVZmAZAi9aKN7CdEm+/rsL mqRfFPyx0mSWgJI8vS61ejkImDGPcEOz4JwVlBImGwFfJGKNZ/Le91gvsGq45i2Oknf2 4bJg== X-Gm-Message-State: AODbwcDb4+nud7HCU3pXaoz1Gd0ZDhvf6Bmfg/unog5SxHScno2Fy75o 0bj9V6fTl7Hj6R4fRK5P+g== X-Received: by 10.28.10.6 with SMTP id 6mr1599963wmk.5.1495533229586; Tue, 23 May 2017 02:53:49 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [192.168.0.102] ([37.189.166.198]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id e187sm311939wmf.31.2017.05.23.02.53.48 (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Tue, 23 May 2017 02:53:48 -0700 (PDT) Subject: Re: GDB 7.99.91 MinGW compilation error in cli-script.c To: Eli Zaretskii References: <20170504194442.63AAF60B72@joel.gnat.com> <83o9v3cs25.fsf@gnu.org> <91d9fc6cc7c07674a0b5cd02e7b1502b@polymtl.ca> <8360h38r1r.fsf@gnu.org> <20170517143136.mdnstf2u2jiydvnd@adacore.com> <83fug35v70.fsf@gnu.org> <83y3tt2ow0.fsf@gnu.org> <83vaox2j0w.fsf@gnu.org> <7017128a-7b51-5436-657b-58807d04eb02@redhat.com> <83vaouns1q.fsf@gnu.org> <837f18ohr2.fsf@gnu.org> Cc: brobecker@adacore.com, simon.marchi@polymtl.ca, gdb-patches@sourceware.org From: Pedro Alves Message-ID: <54594002-5d70-9ff8-c481-0cbfc8c68c7b@redhat.com> Date: Tue, 23 May 2017 09:53:00 -0000 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:45.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/45.4.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <837f18ohr2.fsf@gnu.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-SW-Source: 2017-05/txt/msg00507.txt.bz2 On 05/22/2017 07:42 PM, Eli Zaretskii wrote: >> Cc: brobecker@adacore.com, simon.marchi@polymtl.ca, gdb-patches@sourceware.org >> From: Pedro Alves >> Date: Mon, 22 May 2017 16:26:19 +0100 >> >> Is there still a reason for the "#include <_mingw.h>"? > > Yes, that's where _GLIBCXX_USE_C99 is defined. Urgh... > >> Otherwise, if >> >> - older broken mingw releases get the replacement >> - newer fixed mingw releases don't get the replacement >> - mingw-w64 doesn't get the replacement (as it doesn't need one IIUC) >> >> then it's fine with me. > > Hmmm... I see that MinGW64 doesn't define _GLIBCXX_USE_C99 in its > system headers, I'm surprised mingw does this, because that's a libstdc++ internal symbol... > so I guess I will have to add the > __MINGW64_VERSION_MAJOR guard as well. Please also take a look at the fix for: https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58393 which suggests to me that newer compilers against older mingw might actually be fixed, independently of the _GLIBCXX_USE_C99 hack? > >> It'd be useful for the archives if you expanded on which mingw versions >> and compilers you tested this on. Also likewise a short comment to >> the effect in the code would be likewise handy for future readers > > OK, will do. > >> (please use /**/ style comments). > > I thought I did... The comments you had added in the original patch used // style: +// For versions of mingw.org's MinGW runtime before 5.0, make sure +// libstdc++ headers don't omit portions that require C99. Thanks, Pedro Alves