On 12/11/21 03:35, Jan Nieuwenhuizen wrote:
It looks like the inode returned by
stat is always 0 on MinGW (at least it is under wine), so also when
choosing this approach we would need to special case our client code for
MinGW?
Yes, you'll have problems on such platforms. For ideas about this,
Hi Ryan,
Thank you for the extensive explanations. The MAC_OS_X_VERSION_MAX_ALLOWED /
MAC_OS_X_VERSION_MIN_REQUIRED pair makes perfect sense.
> In 10.5, Apple introduced a new header Availability.h which they want you to
> use instead of AvailabilityMacros.h
Huh? The comments in Availability.h s
Jan Nieuwenhuizen wrote:
> Do you see a cheap way to return the correct casing for the rest of the
> file name?
No. [1]
> I agree it's quite debatable and a bit arbitrary to correct drive name
> casing. The reasons why opted to put in after all are:
>
>* it's cheap (I had the impression tha
Hello Jan,
> > 2) If we wanted to make this function consistent on all platforms, we would
> >also need to handle
> > - Linux with mounted VFAT file systems,
> > - macOS with case-insensitive HFS+,
> > - different locales on Windows (e.g. to recognize that 'ä' and 'Ä' are
> >
Jan Nieuwenhuizen wrote:
Do you see a cheap way to return the correct casing for the rest of the
file name? That could be nice, maybe a change like that has a chance of
being accepted.
The only safe way I've found is to call
'GetShortPathName()' and 'GetLongPathNameA()'
to get the true correc
Paul Eggert writes:
> On 12/9/21 22:59, Jan Nieuwenhuizen wrote:
>> We are using the canonical form as an automatic include guard, to not
>> include the same file twice.
>
> Gnulib's same-inode module is often a better way to attack that problem.
That's an interesting suggestion. It looks like t
Hi,
I'm using build-aux/prefix-gnulib-mk to rewrite the Gnulib Makefile
fragment so that it can be included by a Makefile in a top-level directory.
What I haven't managed to get working, though, is renaming the Gnulib lib/
directory at the same time (by setting $source_base in bootstrap.conf). Th
Paul Eggert writes:
> On 12/10/21 04:06, Jan Nieuwenhuizen wrote:
>> (thanks to your input on my previous patch, we discussed and decided not
>> to do case folding in our client code either).
>
> That patch still tries to case-fold one-letter drive specs, though -
> why bother doing that if you do
