Charles Wilson wrote: > No. I'm going to fix memcpy. If it ain't broke, don't mess with it. > memcpy is broken. I'll fix *that*. > >> Isn't this the first time anyone has reported these problem >> prototypes messing up a compile? > > Nope; I've done it several times. 'course, my solution at those times > was the same as yours: submit a patch to cygwin.din. > > And really, it's hard to blame most packages for simply assuming that > if (e.g.) memcpy.h exists then Well Of COURSE memcpy() is available. > > Slightly more paranoid maintainers might simply die during configure > if memcpy() can't be found. Only the truly obsessed-with-portability > would provide alternate implementations (bcopy?) if memcpy() wasn't > found, but memcpy.h was.
3 things: - The issue here was mempcpy, not memcpy - Cygwin *doesn't* have a memcpy.h - I still don't understand what you are going to fix - am I missing the obvious? Max. -- Unsubscribe info: http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple Bug reporting: http://cygwin.com/bugs.html Documentation: http://cygwin.com/docs.html FAQ: http://cygwin.com/faq/
