On Mon, Oct 28, 2013 at 12:43:04PM -0400, Larry Hall (Cygwin) wrote:
>On 10/27/2013 5:51 AM, Corinna Vinschen wrote:
>> On Oct 26 21:27, Christopher Faylor wrote:
>>> On Sat, Oct 26, 2013 at 11:47:04AM +0200, Corinna Vinschen wrote:
>>>> On Oct 26 02:25, Christopher Faylor wrote:
>>>>> On Sat, Oct 26, 2013 at 10:14:01AM +0400, Alexey Pavlov wrote:
>>>>>> /usr/include/w32api/winnt.h:3541:20: error: previous definition of
>>>>>> ?struct _EXCEPTION_REGISTRATION_RECORD?
>>>>>> typedef struct _EXCEPTION_REGISTRATION_RECORD {
>>>>>> ^
>>>>>> In file included from /work/Cygwin/winsup/cygwin/exception.h:15:0,
>>>>>> from /work/Cygwin/winsup/cygwin/cygtls.cc:20:
>>>>>> /work/Cygwin/winsup/cygwin/include/exceptions.h:109:17: error: invalid
>>>>>> type in declaration before ?;? token
>>>>>> } exception_list;
>>>>>> ^
>>>>>> /work/Cygwin/winsup/cygwin/../Makefile.common:43: recipe for target
>>>>>> 'cygtls.o' failed
>>>>>> make[3]: *** [cygtls.o] Error 1
>>>>>
>>>>> Feel free to provide patches. Simple compilation issues do not
>>>>> require copyright assignment.
>>>>
>>>> I applied a patch. The redefinition of _exception_list to
>>>> _EXCEPTION_REGISTRATION_RECORD for x86_64 was cruft from a very early
>>>> "just build, goddammit" porting stage. Later on it turned out that
>>>> x86_64 doesn't use frame based exception handling anyway so all the
>>>> code using _exception_list is unused on x86_64 anyway.
>>>>
>>>> I also changed the public header <exceptions.h> so that it only
>>>> applies if !x86_64.
>>>>
>>>> That leads to a question:
>>>>
>>>> Why on earth do we have a *public* header exposing the exception
>>>> handling on a certain CPU? This isn't a standard header, neither POSIX
>>>> nor Linux nor BSD systems have it.
>>>>
>>>> If there isn't a compelling reason to keep the header, I would opt
>>>> for folding the content into the private Cygwin header exception.h
>>>> and drop the public header entirely.
>>>
>>> I think its existence predates me. I vote to nuke it.
>>
>> 2 pro votes, 0 dissenting votes. Done. I just hope the voting period
>> wasn't too short...
>
>I demand a recount! ;-)
Looks like, with 2 people responding, the votes are now 5 pro, 0
dissenting. Luckily for us we use Diebold voting machines so there is
no possibility of error.
cgf
--
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
