On Apr 9 09:19, Charles Wilson wrote: > On 4/9/2013 5:16 AM, Corinna Vinschen wrote: > >On Apr 8 13:54, Charles Wilson wrote: > >>But doesn't this mean that the cygwin's w32api package should > >>exclude all of the ddk headers; it's not simply a case that you > >>"shouldn't" use ddk/*.h, but that you actually cannot, because > >>compilation will fail. > > > >The absence of intrin.h was a bug, but otherwise you could still use > >the ddk headers for what they are supposed to be: Writing device > >drives and other kernel stuff. The difference is just that the ddk > >headers from mingw-w64 cannot be used together with the user space > >headers like windows.h, but that's not different from "upstream". > > ...but is it reasonable to create a *cygwin* device driver or kernel > mode item? If you're using the cygwin compiler, then you're linking > against the cygwin dll -- which makes a bunch of usermode w32 calls > under the hood. If it's bad juju to mix ddk/ kernel mode stuff with > w32api/ user mode stuff, then any "cygwin" device driver is, by > definition, bad juju. > > If I'm correct, then the *cygwin* w32api-headers package (and > cygwin64-w32api-headers) should exclude ddk/ from their deliverable > footprint, even if intrin.h is added back to the toplevel w32api/ > include directory for other reasons.
Well, actually I don't really care one way or the other. You may want to discuss this with JonY. Corinna -- Corinna Vinschen Please, send mails regarding Cygwin to Cygwin Maintainer cygwin AT cygwin DOT com Red Hat -- Problem reports: http://cygwin.com/problems.html FAQ: http://cygwin.com/faq/ Documentation: http://cygwin.com/docs.html Unsubscribe info: http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple
