Re: [Mingw-users] Re: _WIN32?

Eli Zaretskii
2001-05-04T02:19:00Z

> 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?

So I think some of the tests will have to be left alone. It is
possible to make them less OS-dependent by defining a set of more
portable macros, along the lines of FILENAME_CMP, but the macro
definitions will need to be system-dependent (see filenames.h for an
example).

If it will help, I can prepare a list which describes all uses of
these system-dependent fragments in GDB sources with the reasons for
each one of them, and publish it here as a base for further
discussions.

> Per my
> earlier e-mail, the obvious oneis to do with how file systems are DOS
> file systems are handled and there, I think things are being replaced
> with a runtime test.

If you mean the FILENAME_CMP and IS_ABSOLUTE_PATH, then these are
compile-time tests.