[patch] Fix i386-mingw32 build failure

[Joe Buck]

On Wed, Aug 10, 2005 at 02:35:41PM -0400, DJ Delorie wrote:
> 
> > I still think it's a bad solution, though; it's imposing special
> > semantics for process execution in libiberty, rather than the normal
> > ones that you would expect from the OS.
> 
> Doing that is part of the purpose of libiberty.  If the OS does
> something unusual, we try to make it act in a conforming way, so that
> the rest of the tools need not worry about the OS differences.  Adding
> support for #! scripts is one of the ways we can make MinGW more
> conforming (Cygwin and DJGPP already support #!) to the norm.

I'm inclined to agree that this seems like a natural use of libiberty;
the purpose all along has been to isolate OS differences, fill in missing
functions, etc.

Mark, can you think of any specific negative consequences?