From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 81971 invoked by alias); 18 Mar 2016 23:29:21 -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 81960 invoked by uid 89); 18 Mar 2016 23:29:20 -0000 Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; auth=none X-Virus-Found: No X-Spam-SWARE-Status: No, score=-0.9 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,KAM_LAZY_DOMAIN_SECURITY,SPF_HELO_PASS autolearn=no version=3.3.2 spammy=H*M:cygwin, H*F:U*yselkowitz, identically, emacs X-HELO: mx1.redhat.com Received: from mx1.redhat.com (HELO mx1.redhat.com) (209.132.183.28) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.93/v0.84-503-g423c35a) with (AES256-GCM-SHA384 encrypted) ESMTPS; Fri, 18 Mar 2016 23:29:19 +0000 Received: from int-mx11.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (int-mx11.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com [10.5.11.24]) by mx1.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 0448280082 for ; Fri, 18 Mar 2016 23:29:18 +0000 (UTC) Received: from [10.10.116.22] (ovpn-116-22.rdu2.redhat.com [10.10.116.22]) by int-mx11.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id u2INTG11031612 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO) for ; Fri, 18 Mar 2016 19:29:17 -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> From: Yaakov Selkowitz Message-ID: <56EC8F50.9020905@cygwin.com> Date: Fri, 18 Mar 2016 23:29:00 -0000 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:38.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/38.6.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <56EC89C2.9010105@cygwin.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-IsSubscribed: yes X-SW-Source: 2016-03/txt/msg00096.txt.bz2 On 2016-03-18 18:05, Yaakov Selkowitz wrote: > On 2016-03-18 17:25, Ken Brown wrote: >> On 3/18/2016 5:45 PM, Corinna Vinschen wrote: >>> On Mar 18 16:58, Ken Brown wrote: >>>> On 3/18/2016 4:34 PM, Corinna Vinschen wrote: >>>>> I released a new Cygwin TEST version 2.5.0-0.8. >>>>> >>>>> If things are not going very wrong, this is basically what you'll >>>>> get as 2.5.0-1 release. Please, please test and report regressions. >>>> >>>> Does this release include Yaakov's overhaul of the feature test macros? >>> >>> Sorry, I completely forgot to metion this in my release mail, which >>> is especially weird because I created this test release to allow testing >>> the new feature test macros in the first place. Sorry! >> >> 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 There's some seriously hackish things going on in that file, some of them Cygwin specific. As far as this is concerned, our headers should be no different than glibc. BTW, folks, I'm here to help deal with any fallout from these changes, but this is going to be the first answer to such issues: others need to stop making hackish, wrong, or outdated assumptions about Cygwin. Yes, that means pushing some patches to undo this mistreatment, but nothing new there. As of today's 2.5.0-0.8, it should only considered a bug in our headers when something does not compile if and only if Cygwin is treated identically to glibc. -- Yaakov