[Top][All Lists]

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

Re: Windows mingw64 and cygwin builds broken

From: Andy Moreton
Subject: Re: Windows mingw64 and cygwin builds broken
Date: Fri, 13 Nov 2015 11:23:23 +0000
User-agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/24.5.50 (windows-nt)

On Fri 13 Nov 2015, Eli Zaretskii wrote:

>> From: Andy Moreton <address@hidden>
>> Date: Fri, 13 Nov 2015 09:58:33 +0000
>> >> ./dbusbind.c:1704:  DEFSYM (QCdbus_timeout, ":timeout");
>> >> ./w32fns.c:9302:  DEFSYM (QCtimeout, ":timeout");
>> >
>> > Does this mean that your MinGW64 build uses D-Bus?  If so, it
>> > shouldn't use the native w32 tray notifications.  I've pushed a change
>> > to that effect, please test.  If you can afford testing MinGW64 also
>> > without D-Bus, I'd appreciate that.
>> I dont use D-Bus, but it may be detected by configure in the mingw64
>> build.
> Is HAVE_DBUS defined in src/config.h?  Is src/dbusbind.c compiled, and
> do you see src/dbusbind.o in your MinGW64 build?

configure was detecting dbus support (shown in the summary at the end),
so I think it was being compiled in. mingw64 bootstrap of commit
2b4c0c0cefa4 works after adding "--without-dbus" to my build script.

[ backtracce snipped]
> Can you convert this to human-readable backtrace, or run the same
> command under GDB and show a backtrace?

Sorry, I don't have that build any more. I will look again at the weekend.

>> >> Renaming QCdbus_timeout to QCtimeout allows the cygwin-w32 and mingw64
>> >> builds to bootstrap successfully (I don't know if that is the right
>> >> fix though). Should the other keyword argument symbols in dbusbind.c
>> >> also be renamed QCdbus_* -> QC* ?
>> >
>> > I don't understand why dbusbind.c uses such a non-standard naming
>> > convention.  Michael?
>> If the patch renamed the C symbols to use the normal convention, then it
>> appears that there is no harm in havng two modules declare identical
>> symbols in syms_of_*(). 
> Yes, but I still want to understand the reasons for this naming
> convention, and I think we need to avoid calling DEFSYM twice even for
> the same name.

If we want to avoid calling DEFSYM twice (which seems a good idea), then
the C level sumbol names should be available in a header, and common
keyword argument symbols should be DEFSYMed in a module that is always
present regardless of build options.


reply via email to

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