From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 14771 invoked by alias); 19 May 2017 17:31:58 -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 14731 invoked by uid 89); 19 May 2017 17:31:57 -0000 Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; auth=none X-Virus-Found: No X-Spam-SWARE-Status: No, score=-2.0 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,RP_MATCHES_RCVD,SPF_PASS autolearn=ham version=3.3.2 spammy= X-HELO: eggs.gnu.org Received: from eggs.gnu.org (HELO eggs.gnu.org) (208.118.235.92) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.93/v0.84-503-g423c35a) with ESMTP; Fri, 19 May 2017 17:31:53 +0000 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1dBlkk-000225-Mx for gdb-patches@sourceware.org; Fri, 19 May 2017 13:31:55 -0400 Received: from fencepost.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::e]:60927) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1dBlkk-00021z-J4; Fri, 19 May 2017 13:31:50 -0400 Received: from 84.94.185.246.cable.012.net.il ([84.94.185.246]:4244 helo=home-c4e4a596f7) by fencepost.gnu.org with esmtpsa (TLS1.2:RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA1:256) (Exim 4.82) (envelope-from ) id 1dBlkj-000734-Qu; Fri, 19 May 2017 13:31:50 -0400 Date: Fri, 19 May 2017 17:31:00 -0000 Message-Id: <8360gw3g94.fsf@gnu.org> From: Eli Zaretskii To: Pedro Alves CC: gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org, gdb-patches@sourceware.org In-reply-to: (message from Pedro Alves on Fri, 19 May 2017 16:51:30 +0100) Subject: Re: MinGW compilation warnings in libiberty's include/environ.h Reply-to: Eli Zaretskii References: <83k25rcqw2.fsf@gnu.org> X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: GNU/Linux 2.2.x-3.x [generic] X-Received-From: 2001:4830:134:3::e X-IsSubscribed: yes X-SW-Source: 2017-05/txt/msg00463.txt.bz2 > Cc: gdb-patches@sourceware.org > From: Pedro Alves > Date: Fri, 19 May 2017 16:51:30 +0100 > > So again there's a system header that defines the symbol > but for some reason libiberty still wants to declare/define > it is if it weren't? Yes. AFAICS, libiberty's configure script doesn't check the declaration, it only probes the setenv function itself. You can see that the cpp directives around the environ declarations are OS-dependent rather than based on autoconf tests. > That sounds to me like the root issue that should be fixed, > so that these fallback definitions don't come into into play at all. > I.e., why isn't HAVE_ENVIRON_DECL defined on mingw when > setenv.o is built? Sounds like a decl check is missing > in configure.ac. Most probably, yes.