This is the mail archive of the
gcc@gcc.gnu.org
mailing list for the GCC project.
RE: MinGW, GCC Vista,
- From: Eric Weddington <eweddington at cso dot atmel dot com>
- To: gcc at gcc dot gnu dot org, "'Mark Mitchell'" <mark at codesourcery dot com>
- Cc: craig at palantir dot co dot za
- Date: Wed, 09 May 2007 14:37:13 -0600
- Subject: RE: MinGW, GCC Vista,
- References: <4640E9B0.89E6B325@dessent.net>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Brian Dessent [mailto:brian@dessent.net]
> Sent: Tuesday, May 08, 2007 3:21 PM
> To: Mark Mitchell
> Cc: gcc@gcc.gnu.org; craig@palantir.co.za
> Subject: Re: MinGW, GCC Vista,
>
> Mark Mitchell wrote:
>
> > In my opinion, this is a GCC bug: there's no such thing as X_OK on
> > Windows (it's not in the Microsoft headers, or documented
> by Microsoft
> > as part of the API), and so GCC shouldn't be using it. The Vista
> > runtime library chooses to issue an error when you set
> random bits in
> > the mode provided to access, which is its privilege.
> >
> > There's a simple GCC change to fix this: have libiberty
> wrap the access
> > function and mask out X_OK on non-Cygwin Windows. It's
> reasonable to
> > put this change in libiberty, since it's job is to provide
> portability
> > between systems.
>
> This is also true, so I suppose it's not entirely correct to say that
> this is not a gcc issue in the slightest. This above should indeed go
> into libiberty as the long term solution.
I would have thought that too.
For reference, there is this GCC bug report:
<http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=30972>
Eric Weddington