From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 20221 invoked by alias); 7 Apr 2005 07:20:52 -0000 Mailing-List: contact gdb-patches-help@sources.redhat.com; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: gdb-patches-owner@sources.redhat.com Received: (qmail 20128 invoked from network); 7 Apr 2005 07:20:31 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO colo.khms.westfalen.de) (213.239.196.208) by sourceware.org with SMTP; 7 Apr 2005 07:20:31 -0000 Received: from khms.vpn ([10.172.192.2]:45967 helo=khms.westfalen.de ident=Debian-exim) by colo.khms.westfalen.de with esmtpsa (TLS-1.0:RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA:32) (Exim 4.44) id 1DJRIX-0001Zh-5l for gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com; Thu, 07 Apr 2005 09:19:29 +0200 Received: from root (helo=khms.westfalen.de) by khms.westfalen.de with local-bsmtp (Exim 4.44) id 1DJRIT-0003wI-Fn for gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com; Thu, 07 Apr 2005 09:19:25 +0200 Received: by khms.westfalen.de (CrossPoint v3.12d.kh15 R/C435); 07 Apr 2005 09:09:54 +0200 Date: Thu, 07 Apr 2005 07:20:00 -0000 From: kaih@khms.westfalen.de (Kai Henningsen) To: gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com Message-ID: <9UPPQfJ1w-B@khms.westfalen.de> In-Reply-To: <200504060739.j367dlM3000821@elgar.sibelius.xs4all.nl> Subject: Re: Follow-up on patch to ser-tcp.c MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Organization: Organisation? Me?! Are you kidding? References: <4252D364.7050304@codesourcery.com> <4252D364.7050304@codesourcery.com> <200504060739.j367dlM3000821@elgar.sibelius.xs4all.nl> X-No-Junk-Mail: I do not want to get *any* junk mail. X-Fix-Your-Modem: +++ATS2=255&WO1 X-SW-Source: 2005-04/txt/msg00065.txt.bz2 mark.kettenis@xs4all.nl (Mark Kettenis) wrote on 06.04.05 in <200504060739.j367dlM3000821@elgar.sibelius.xs4all.nl>: > Actually I think the WINAPI thingy is more descriptive. In light of > the discussion above, I think there should be a single spot in > configure.ac where we decide whether we want to use the native Windows > API or the proper POSIX interfaces that Cygwin provides get used. > Some sort of "Windows but not Cygwin" would than add -lws2_23 and > define something like USE_WIN32API, and we'd use that define > everywhere where there is a choice between the native Windows API and > the proper POSIX interfaces. I seem to recall that autoconf does know something about that difference. > Great! In this area we also have the ioctlsock v.s. ioctl issue. Is > it possible to keep using the proper POSIX interfaces in the code and > #define ioctl ioctlsock in the USE_WIN32API case instead of the other > way around? I think that makes it easier for non-Windows programmers > to understand the code. The whole point is that Windows has two different ioctl functions, whereas POSIX only has one. Now if you never need to use the non-socket ioctl on Windows, that would be possible - otherwise ... MfG Kai