This is the mail archive of the
gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org
mailing list for the GCC project.
[Bug target/33281] gfortran crt2.o not found under Vista
- From: "keithmarshall at users dot sourceforge dot net" <gcc-bugzilla at gcc dot gnu dot org>
- To: gcc-bugs at gcc dot gnu dot org
- Date: 14 Jan 2008 12:15:53 -0000
- Subject: [Bug target/33281] gfortran crt2.o not found under Vista
- References: <bug-33281-15052@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
- Reply-to: gcc-bugzilla at gcc dot gnu dot org
------- Comment #11 from keithmarshall at users dot sourceforge dot net 2008-01-14 12:15 -------
(In reply to comment #9)
> Fix committed to mainline.
>
As a MinGW administrator, I am dismayed that you consider this
__USE_MINGW_ACCESS kludge as a solution to this bug; I would like this
particularly nasty kludge to go away, from the MinGW code base, as soon as is
practicably possible.
My own view on this is, that since X_OK has no meaning on any platform
supported by MinGW, our headers simply should not define it. Danny Smith has
advised me that I cannot do that, since GCC needs it, if I don't define it, GCC
will give an arbitrary value of one, which will simply reintroduce the old
broken behaviour; IMO, that is wrong: if I don't define it, then it is because
it should not be used, and GCC should respect that.
Danny has further advised me that, if I were to adopt the next best compromise,
and define X_OK with a value of zero, that that too would break GCC, because it
uses X_OK in other contexts than the mode argument to access(), and in those
contexts the value of zero would not work. If this is indeed the case, then I
would respectfully suggest that such usage is a violation of IEEE-1003.1, which
explicitly defines F_OK, R_OK, W_OK and X_OK for use as values for composing
the mode argument to access(), (and for no other purpose).
Regards,
Keith.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=33281