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: Vladimir Simonov <Vladimir dot Simonov at acronis dot com>
- To: Ian Lance Taylor <iant at google dot com>, Joey Ye <joey dot ye dot cc at gmail dot com>
- Cc: 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 07:55:02 +0000
- 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>
> -----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.
Vladimir