> -----Original Message----- > From: Ian Lance Taylor [mailto:i...@google.com] > Sent: Wednesday, November 06, 2013 6:42 PM > To: Joey Ye > Cc: gcc-patches; d...@redhat.com; Vladimir Simonov > Subject: Re: [PATCH] [libiberty] MAX_PATH problems with mingw gcc
Jan, thank you for your attention. It looks to me that you missed that the patch changes current gcc policy for work with pathname separators on "hosts" supporting both back and forward slashes from neutral(undefined) behavior to more defined - "From now on hosts/builds (in terms of host-build-target) supporting both back and forward slashes gcc tries to use forward slashes both in filenames saved in binaries for target and for internal work." And this patch is just first, little step in this direction. In fact the patch was published just to show problems and start discussion about ways for their solution. Above may not satisfy you and other gcc developers/consumers. As minimum I'm interested in Mingw people opinion. Arguments for new policy are simple - this policy should not affect "native" builds but helps a lot in case when host/build supports both kinds of separators but target supports only forward slashes. Without explicit consensus on above I see no sense in the patch details discussion. Vladimir
