On 11/26/2011 00:39, nick clifton wrote:
>>  I got no comment on that part of the email back then, and I still
>> don't know if this should be considered as an error in mingw32
>> declarations or if it should be fixed in Binutils sources.
>>
>> I would like to know if this warning should be corrected or not...
> 
> I guess that mingw32 is free to define system headers as it so chooses.
>  If however it is attempting to be POSIX compatible then it should
> follow the POSIX standard for the execvp() function and prototype it as:
> 
>  int execvp(const char *path, char *const argv[]);
> 
> Ie, the binutils are correct and mingw32 ought to be changed.  I suspect
> however that the mingw32 project will not want to change their header,
> so the best compromise would be to fix the binutils.
> 

Before the misinformation spreads, see MSDN docs at:
<http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/3xw6zy53%28v=vs.80%29.aspx>.

intptr_t _execvp(
   const char *cmdname,
   const char *const *argv
);

execvp is an alias to _execvp. POSIX or not, MinGW can't change that
without annoying their target audience.