Peter Rosin wrote:
> Maybe, here are the errors:
>
> So, I guess these declarations should do it (untested):
>
> int _setmode (int, int);
> int _spawnv (int, const char *, const char * const *);
> #ifndef _P_WAIT /* just in case */
> # define _P_WAIT 0
> #endif
_P_WAIT is guarded in MSVC's process.h by #ifndef _POSIX_ (as opposed to
__STRICT_ANSI__). In MinGW's process.h, it is not guarded at all (but
P_WAIT is guarded by _NO_OLDNAMES).
> #ifndef _STAT_DEFINED
> struct _stat
> {
> _dev_t st_dev; /* Equivalent to drive number 0=A 1=B ... */
> _ino_t st_ino; /* Always zero ? */
> _mode_t st_mode; /* See above constants */
> short st_nlink; /* Number of links. */
> short st_uid; /* User: Maybe significant on NT ? */
> short st_gid; /* Group: Ditto */
> _dev_t st_rdev; /* Seems useless (not even filled in) */
> _off_t st_size; /* File size in bytes */
> time_t st_atime; /* Accessed date (always 00:00 hrs local
> * on FAT) */
> time_t st_mtime; /* Modified time */
> time_t st_ctime; /* Creation time */
> };
> #endif /* _STAT_DEFINED */
Something is not right here. I took a look at the pre-preocessed output
from mingw-gcc -std=c89 -E lt-foo.c, and both 'struct stat' and 'struct
_stat' were declared. Further, looking at the MinGW sys/stat.h, I can't
see where any of the compile flags we are using -- even the restrictive
ones -- would exclude those declarations.
Are you using the MSVC include files here? I thought the test case was:
"On MSYS/MinGW, stresstest.at now passes when "Run tests with low
max_cmd_len", that fails on git master. On the other hand, "cwrapper for
uninstalled executables" fails at cwrapper.at:78 (both with and without
low max_cmd_len)."
MSYS/MinGW, *not* msvc?
Now, if there are MSVC problems, we'll have to fix those, too. But I
want to be clear on exactly what we're discussing...
> int _stat (const char *, struct _stat *);
> #ifndef S_IXUSR /* just in case */
> # define S_IXUSR _S_IXUSR
> #endif
> int _chmod (const char *, int);
> char * _getcwd (char *, int);
>
> But IMHO, the struct _stat declaration is horrible to have in the
> code. Shouldn't we just #undef __STRICT_ANSI__ before we include
> anything or something? It's not as if that define helps...
Well, it's not just __STRICT_ANSI__, it's also _POSIX_ sometimes. Maybe
you're right, and we should #undef __STRICT_ANSI__ and #def _POSIX_
before including headers. However, adding a few more function
declarations is not so bad...so I could go either way, so long as we
figure out why you're not getting the struct _stat declaration.
--
Chuck
