Re: [Mingw-users] Re: _WIN32?

[Christopher Faylor <cgf@redhat.com>]

On Fri, May 04, 2001 at 05:19:04AM -0400, Eli Zaretskii wrote:
>> Date: Thu, 03 May 2001 18:24:32 -0400
>> From: Andrew Cagney <ac131313@cygnus.com>
>> 
>> I'm actually puzzled.  It looks very like someone took a shortcut and, 
>> instead of implementing new methods, just went through and commented out 
>> every call to kill().  cf handle_sigio().
>
>In this case, it might be easier to write a version of kill() that
>does nothing (e.g., define a macro).
>
>> Yes, for the most part I would like to strongly encouraging people doing 
>> WIN32, GO32 and CYGWIN ports to look back over all those #ifdef's and 
>> see if they are better served by an autoconf feature test.
>
>Based on my experience, quite a few of them won't be served better by
>an Autoconf test, because it isn't quite clear what to test.  One
>notable example is the terminal initialization in
>utils.c:init_page_info--how do you test for something whose effect is
>on the screen?

You don't necessarily have to test for anything.  We could just add
a TERMINAL_DOES_BLAH conditional which was set only when gdb was being
run under cygwin, or djgpp, or (don't worry we're working on it and
will have something in the next <<undeterminied>> timeframe, really
we will) Windows.  You don't actually have to write an autoconf test
for this.

I suspect that most tests are like this because tests like filename
case insensitivity require running a test on the host, which isn't
possible in a cross-build environment anyway... as everyone here
know...

cgf