[Top][All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

[Bug libctf/25155] libctf directory doesn't compile with MinGW

From: cvs-commit at gcc dot gnu.org
Subject: [Bug libctf/25155] libctf directory doesn't compile with MinGW
Date: Sat, 01 Feb 2020 11:29:13 +0000


--- Comment #5 from cvs-commit at gcc dot gnu.org <cvs-commit at gcc dot 
gnu.org> ---
The gdb-9-branch branch has been updated by Joel Brobecker


commit 50500ecfefd6acc4c7f6c2a95bc0ae1945103220
Author: Eli Zaretskii <address@hidden>
Date:   Sat Feb 1 15:25:19 2020 +0400

    libctf: compilation failure on MinGW due to missing errno values

    This commit fixes a compilation failure in a couple of libctf files
    due to the use of EOVERFLOW and ENOTSUP, which are not defined
    when compiling on MinGW.


        PR binutils/25155:
        * ctf-create.c (EOVERFLOW): If not defined by system header,
        redirect to ERANGE as a poor man's substitute.
        * ctf-subr.c (ENOTSUP): If not defined, use ENOSYS instead.

    This one is how Eli implemented it. I think this implementation
    has a weakness in the following sense: If other units in libctf
    start using those constants, we'll get the same error again.
    Also, I'm wondering whether their use is documented as part of
    the official libtcf API or not -- users might be writing code
    that tests for these, and if the system doesn't support them,
    how would they know what errno code to use in its place. This
    argues for a having that information in one of libctf's header
    files. I think it would be nice to have those in ctf-decls.h,
    but I think we'll need to include <errno.h> in ctf-decls.h if
    we decide to define those macros there.

    Rather than second-guess what the CTF developers would prefer,
    I'm starting by sending Eli's patch, to see what you guys think.


You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.

reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]