This is the mail archive of the
gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: [PATCH] [libiberty] MAX_PATH problems with mingw gcc
- From: Ian Lance Taylor <iant at google dot com>
- To: Vladimir Simonov <Vladimir dot Simonov at acronis dot com>
- Cc: Joey Ye <joey dot ye dot cc at gmail dot com>, gcc-patches <gcc-patches at gcc dot gnu dot org>, "dj at redhat dot com" <dj at redhat dot com>
- Date: Thu, 7 Nov 2013 06:53:06 -0800
- Subject: Re: [PATCH] [libiberty] MAX_PATH problems with mingw gcc
- Authentication-results: sourceware.org; auth=none
- References: <CAL0py24MJFN=kj8m0GwNERDZSpShPECnSVbtXgmJ2bxe6YsGqw at mail dot gmail dot com> <CAKOQZ8wkEKCY4YOg60U3dwnQvuntAJe-FP2tew5TNo=vSgGs3w at mail dot gmail dot com> <F0AD13EFC234B549BBA4FCA20755EB24D42280E0 at rus-mbx-2 dot ru dot corp dot acronis dot com>
On Wed, Nov 6, 2013 at 11:55 PM, Vladimir Simonov
<Vladimir.Simonov@acronis.com> wrote:
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Ian Lance Taylor [mailto:iant@google.com]
>> Sent: Wednesday, November 06, 2013 6:42 PM
>> To: Joey Ye
>> Cc: gcc-patches; dj@redhat.com; Vladimir Simonov
>> Subject: Re: [PATCH] [libiberty] MAX_PATH problems with mingw gcc
>
> Jan, thank you for your attention.
>
> It looks to me that you missed that the patch changes current gcc policy for work with
> pathname separators on "hosts" supporting both back and forward slashes from
> neutral(undefined) behavior to more defined - "From now on hosts/builds (in terms of host-build-target)
> supporting both back and forward slashes gcc tries to use forward slashes both in filenames saved
> in binaries for target and for internal work."
> And this patch is just first, little step in this direction. In fact the patch was published just
> to show problems and start discussion about ways for their solution.
>
> Above may not satisfy you and other gcc developers/consumers.
> As minimum I'm interested in Mingw people opinion.
>
> Arguments for new policy are simple - this policy should not affect
> "native" builds but helps a lot in case when host/build supports both kinds of separators but
> target supports only forward slashes.
>
> Without explicit consensus on above I see no sense in the patch details discussion.
Personally, I'm fine with that proposed change in policy.
As somebody who does not use Windows, it does not affect me. I agree
that getting the opinion of the mingw maintainers makes sense.
I commented on the details of the patch because Joey pinged me to
submit it, and I am a libiberty maintainer. If you want to discuss
the above proposal, then by all means discuss it.
Ian