Hi Ken,

On Mar 21 08:05, Ken Brown wrote:
> On 3/20/2016 4:24 PM, Yaakov Selkowitz wrote:
> >On 2016-03-20 12:29, Ken Brown wrote:
> >>>>Never mind.  I just sent a report to bug-gnulib, so you can follow up
> >>>>there.
> >>
> >>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.
> >
> >Treating Cygwin just like glibc should generally be the solution.
> 
> The problem is now fixed in upstream Gnulib.

I just read the thread and it occured to me that this doesn't only
affect Cygwin, but all systems using newlib starting with the next
version of newlib.

That reminds me that we have to bump newlib's version about now.

Would you mind to follow up with that problem on bug-gnulib?  The test
should probably look like this, more or less:

#!((defined __GLIBC__ \
    || (defined __NEWLIB__ \
    && ((__NEWLIB__ == 2 && __NEWLIB_MINOR__ >= 4) || __NEWLIB__ >= 3))) \
 && !defined __UCLIBC__)

As for the actual version number to test I have to talk to Jeff if we
can change the version to 2.4 or at least 2.3.1.  2.4 would simplify the
test in gnulib, otherwise the test gets a bit more complicated.


Thanks,
Corinna

-- 
Corinna Vinschen                  Please, send mails regarding Cygwin to
Cygwin Maintainer                 cygwin AT cygwin DOT com
Red Hat