On Wed, Nov 6, 2013 at 11:55 PM, Vladimir Simonov <vladimir.simo...@acronis.com> wrote: >> -----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.
Personally, I'm fine with that proposed change in policy. As somebody who does not use Windows, it does not affect me. I agree that getting the opinion of the mingw maintainers makes sense. I commented on the details of the patch because Joey pinged me to submit it, and I am a libiberty maintainer. If you want to discuss the above proposal, then by all means discuss it. Ian
