From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 44269 invoked by alias); 20 Mar 2016 19:31:07 -0000 Mailing-List: contact cygwin-apps-help@cygwin.com; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk Sender: cygwin-apps-owner@cygwin.com List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Mail-Followup-To: cygwin-apps@cygwin.com Received: (qmail 44123 invoked by uid 89); 20 Mar 2016 19:31:06 -0000 Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; auth=none X-Virus-Found: No X-Spam-SWARE-Status: No, score=-1.7 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,RP_MATCHES_RCVD,SPF_HELO_PASS,SPF_PASS autolearn=unavailable version=3.3.2 spammy= X-HELO: limerock03.mail.cornell.edu Received: from limerock03.mail.cornell.edu (HELO limerock03.mail.cornell.edu) (128.84.13.243) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.93/v0.84-503-g423c35a) with ESMTP; Sun, 20 Mar 2016 19:30:59 +0000 X-CornellRouted: This message has been Routed already. Received: from authusersmtp.mail.cornell.edu (granite3.serverfarm.cornell.edu [10.16.197.8]) by limerock03.mail.cornell.edu (8.14.4/8.14.4_cu) with ESMTP id u2KHTFHp030011 for ; Sun, 20 Mar 2016 13:29:15 -0400 Received: from [192.168.1.4] (mta-68-175-148-36.twcny.rr.com [68.175.148.36] (may be forged)) (authenticated bits=0) by authusersmtp.mail.cornell.edu (8.14.4/8.12.10) with ESMTP id u2KHTD8t006337 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=NOT) for ; Sun, 20 Mar 2016 13:29:14 -0400 Subject: Re: [ANNOUNCEMENT] TEST RELEASE: Cygwin 2.5.0-0.8 To: cygwin-apps@cygwin.com References: <56EC6BDA.7050505@cornell.edu> <20160318214509.GD11113@calimero.vinschen.de> <56EC8053.40604@cornell.edu> <56EC89C2.9010105@cygwin.com> <56EC8F50.9020905@cygwin.com> <56ECB842.7090807@cornell.edu> <20160319103209.GE11113@calimero.vinschen.de> <56ED4764.4090007@cornell.edu> <56ED9459.8030101@cornell.edu> <20160320152625.GH11113@calimero.vinschen.de> From: Ken Brown Message-ID: <56EEDDEC.2070503@cornell.edu> Date: Sun, 20 Mar 2016 20:18:00 -0000 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; WOW64; rv:38.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/38.7.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <20160320152625.GH11113@calimero.vinschen.de> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-IsSubscribed: yes X-SW-Source: 2016-03/txt/msg00114.txt.bz2 Message-ID: <20160320201800.pA-NG-icgqN8VRokoBPnUbWp5MCuqiUe0b5W5ZkwSq0@z> On 3/20/2016 11:26 AM, Corinna Vinschen wrote: > On Mar 19 14:03, Ken Brown wrote: >> On 3/19/2016 8:34 AM, Ken Brown wrote: >>> On 3/19/2016 6:32 AM, Corinna Vinschen wrote: >>>> On Mar 18 22:24, Ken Brown wrote: >>>>> On 3/18/2016 7:29 PM, Yaakov Selkowitz wrote: >>>>>> On 2016-03-18 18:05, Yaakov Selkowitz wrote: >>>>>>> On 2016-03-18 17:25, Ken Brown wrote: >>>>>>>> The problem I reported in >>>>>>>> https://www.cygwin.com/ml/cygwin/2015-12/msg00183.html has >>>>>>>> reappeared. >>>>>>>> It looks like your fix >>>>>>>> (https://www.cygwin.com/ml/cygwin/2015-12/msg00199.html) got >>>>>>>> reverted. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> The commit message for removing the include did not indicate what >>>>>>> prompted it. However, the include is necessary for BSD compatibility, >>>>>>> and other software fails to build without it. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> I would look into emacs and see what feature test macro(s) they enable >>>>>>> on *Linux*, and use the same for Cygwin. >>>>>> >>>>>> Might this be it? >>>>>> >>>>>> http://git.savannah.gnu.org/cgit/emacs.git/tree/lib/sys_select.in.h >>>>> >>>>> This file is part of the Gnulib module that I mentioned in the thread I >>>>> cited above. >>>>> >>>>>> There's some seriously hackish things going on in that file, some of >>>>>> them Cygwin specific. >>>>> >>>>> I think such things are often necessary in Gnulib, but I'll leave it >>>>> to Eric >>>>> to comment further. In any case, Eric said in our original >>>>> discussion that >>>>> there might be a Gnulib fix for this problem, but then he and Corinna >>>>> ended >>>>> up deciding it was better to remove the include. >>>> >>>> Glibc uses __USE_MISC to guard the inclusion of sys/select.h, newlib's >>>> header uses __BSD_VISIBLE which is almost the same. But we have the >>>> equivalent __MISC_VISIBLE as well. Do you want to change that, Yaakov? >>>> >>>> The discussion with Eric was about the POSIX-ness and at the time it >>>> seemed like the simplest solution to remove the include. But Yaakov >>>> is right. If it's the right thing to do for Glibc to include it >>>> with careful guarding, it should be the right thing for us as well. >>> >>> So I think that means we're back to looking for a Gnulib solution. Eric, >>> can you follow up on that? >> >> Never mind. I just sent a report to bug-gnulib, so you can follow up there. > > Pointer? http://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/bug-gnulib/2016-03/msg00054.html Please check what I wrote in response to Paul and correct any mistakes I might have made. Thanks. Ken