From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from simark.ca by simark.ca with LMTP id TWmLCyqnYmN6QRMAWB0awg (envelope-from ) for ; Wed, 02 Nov 2022 13:21:46 -0400 Received: by simark.ca (Postfix, from userid 112) id 1CAAA1E124; Wed, 2 Nov 2022 13:21:46 -0400 (EDT) Authentication-Results: simark.ca; dkim=pass (1024-bit key; secure) header.d=sourceware.org header.i=@sourceware.org header.a=rsa-sha256 header.s=default header.b=H2Rrm1Co; dkim-atps=neutral X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.6 (2021-04-09) on simark.ca X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.3 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,MAILING_LIST_MULTI,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED, RDNS_DYNAMIC,URIBL_BLOCKED autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.6 Received: from sourceware.org (ip-8-43-85-97.sourceware.org [8.43.85.97]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (2048 bits) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) by simark.ca (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 954BD1E0D3 for ; Wed, 2 Nov 2022 13:21:45 -0400 (EDT) Received: from server2.sourceware.org (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by sourceware.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 65E643856943 for ; Wed, 2 Nov 2022 17:21:44 +0000 (GMT) DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 sourceware.org 65E643856943 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=sourceware.org; s=default; t=1667409704; bh=ztZReFgwULCQpABjZk/yJp/oH7V7fJNAO27v+yGMgVg=; h=Date:To:Subject:In-Reply-To:References:List-Id:List-Unsubscribe: List-Archive:List-Post:List-Help:List-Subscribe:From:Reply-To: From; b=H2Rrm1CobAOZO2iXF+I5p68OFlMM6IW14mvtdFeYWROGEGSHI39MajL9VypqvpwBk EuBO92Lwa7s60qEA+BsIJK1fgktc1DVVGUlTP8OlzIxAbnxnlLl152V1YYvf15loz3 aOOf1G/DGXvEQ2Fayx5uVmIZZ67v35TM0G8oqDg8= Received: from latitanza.investici.org (latitanza.investici.org [IPv6:2001:888:2000:56::19]) by sourceware.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 73A073857023 for ; Wed, 2 Nov 2022 17:20:53 +0000 (GMT) DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.4.1 sourceware.org 73A073857023 Received: from 1.mail-backend.investici.org (unknown [10.0.0.11]) by latitanza.investici.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4N2YZB6nFTzGp2t; Wed, 2 Nov 2022 17:20:50 +0000 (UTC) Received: from 1.webmail.investici.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) (Authenticated sender: i.nixman@autistici.org) by 1.mail-backend.investici.org (Postfix) with ESMTPA id 4N2YZB5STzz5tCB; Wed, 2 Nov 2022 17:20:50 +0000 (UTC) MIME-Version: 1.0 Date: Wed, 02 Nov 2022 17:20:50 +0000 To: Eli Zaretskii , gdb@sourceware.org Subject: Re: _WIN32_WINNT redefined? In-Reply-To: <83fsf19u62.fsf@gnu.org> References: <6485dbfe07e21a1c451b17d3fda5b3d9@autistici.org> <41193fbdb742b1c2d4d7b4ab06561822@autistici.org> <8335b1bjv2.fsf@gnu.org> <83h6zh9ygb.fsf@gnu.org> <821f45f4fe87dc1dcea23520dd8e42ab@autistici.org> <83fsf19u62.fsf@gnu.org> User-Agent: Roundcube Webmail Message-ID: <0a2bab35dcbc1df695371814c7802ec6@autistici.org> X-Sender: i.nixman@autistici.org Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-BeenThere: gdb@sourceware.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: Gdb mailing list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , From: niXman via Gdb Reply-To: i.nixman@autistici.org Errors-To: gdb-bounces+public-inbox=simark.ca@sourceware.org Sender: "Gdb" On 2022-11-02 16:51, Eli Zaretskii wrote: > That's on your system, with your MinGW w32api headers. But that's not > the only game in town. I'm sure there is no WINAPI implementation that does not define _WIN32_WINNT. it's just impossible. but in line 75 the condition is exactly for that impossible case. > That's not what I suggested. I suggested that you augment the above > cpp conditionals such that when the gthread patch is in use, > _WIN32_WINNT is defined to 0x0600, and otherwise to 0x0501, as before. > > The question is: what could be a preprocessor conditional to determine > whether the gthread patch is used, so that it could be used to augment > the above. This is something I cannot answer, but I hope you can. I solved my problem. What I'm doing now is trying to tell you that it's illogical to check the value of _WIN32_WINNT BEFORE the corresponding header file in which this value was originally defined, has been included. best!