On Thu, Jul 04, 2013 at 02:16:17PM +0200, Corinna Vinschen wrote:
>On Jul 4 13:45, Alexey Pavlov wrote:
>> 2013/7/4 Corinna Vinschen:
>> > On Jul 4 14:23, Alexey Pavlov wrote:
>> >> 2013/7/4 Corinna Vinschen:
>> >> > On Jul 4 12:37, Alexey Pavlov wrote:
>> >> >> 2013/7/4 Corinna Vinschen:
>> >> >> > On Jul 4 13:09, Alexey Pavlov wrote:
>> >> >> >> struct utsname
>> >> >> >> {
>> >> >> >> - char sysname[20];
>> >> >> >> + char sysname[21];
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > We can't do that. struct utsname is a publically facing structure.
>> >> >> > If you change the size, you're breaking compatibility with existing
>> >> >> > applications.
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > You should better drop some character from the string you want to
>> >> >> > enter
>> >> >> > here.
>> >> >> >
>> >> >>
>> >> >> I can't drop any symbol from "MINGW32" word :)
>> >> >
>> >> > That's not 20 chars long.
>> >> >
>> >> Yes. But not only this need to be in 20 symbols. On cygwin 20 symbols is:
>> >>
>> >> CYGWIN_NT-6.1-WOW64\0
>> >>
>> >> But
>> >>
>> >> MINGW32_NT-6.1-WOW64\0
>> >>
>> >> is 21 symbol.
>> >
>> > Then drop the dash between "NT" and "6.1". Or let's drop the WOW64
>> > since it's redundant anyway, given the content of "machine".
>> >
>>
>> Let's drop it!
>
>I'm ok with that, but I think we should drop the "32" from MINGW in
>the first place.
>
>Does anybody rely on the "WOW64" in uname -s output? I just checked
>the scripts in /bin in my installation and none of it seems to check
>for that info.
>
>And then again, it *is* redundant, given the uname -m output...
Can we back up a moment and discuss whether, regardless of string
length, this is the right approach? This isn't what I'd envisioned
when I said "hooks".
Also can we please discuss this in the cygwin-developers and
cygwin-patches mailing lists? That's what they are for.
--
Problem reports: http://cygwin.com/problems.html
FAQ: http://cygwin.com/faq/
Documentation: http://cygwin.com/docs.html
Unsubscribe info: http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple
