On Mar 21 10:13, Ken Brown wrote: > On 3/21/2016 9:06 AM, Corinna Vinschen wrote: > >Hi Ken, > > > >On Mar 21 08:05, Ken Brown wrote: > >>On 3/20/2016 4:24 PM, Yaakov Selkowitz wrote: > >>>On 2016-03-20 12:29, Ken Brown wrote: > >>>>>>Never mind. I just sent a report to bug-gnulib, so you can follow up > >>>>>>there. > >>>> > >>>>http://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/bug-gnulib/2016-03/msg00054.html > >>>> > >>>>Please check what I wrote in response to Paul and correct any mistakes I > >>>>might have made. > >>> > >>>Treating Cygwin just like glibc should generally be the solution. > >> > >>The problem is now fixed in upstream Gnulib. > > > >I just read the thread and it occured to me that this doesn't only > >affect Cygwin, but all systems using newlib starting with the next > >version of newlib. > > > >That reminds me that we have to bump newlib's version about now. > > > >Would you mind to follow up with that problem on bug-gnulib? The test > >should probably look like this, more or less: > > > >#!((defined __GLIBC__ \ > > || (defined __NEWLIB__ \ > > && ((__NEWLIB__ == 2 && __NEWLIB_MINOR__ >= 4) || __NEWLIB__ >= 3))) \ > > && !defined __UCLIBC__) > > > >As for the actual version number to test I have to talk to Jeff if we > >can change the version to 2.4 or at least 2.3.1. 2.4 would simplify the > >test in gnulib, otherwise the test gets a bit more complicated. > > Sure, I'll follow up on bug-gnulib as soon as you settle on the version > number.
Thank you. From the thread I take it the version number isn't that important anymore? Thanks, Corinna -- Corinna Vinschen Please, send mails regarding Cygwin to Cygwin Maintainer cygwin AT cygwin DOT com Red Hat
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
