From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 94264 invoked by alias); 30 Apr 2019 17:17:28 -0000 Mailing-List: contact gdb-patches-help@sourceware.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: gdb-patches-owner@sourceware.org Received: (qmail 94254 invoked by uid 89); 30 Apr 2019 17:17:28 -0000 Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; auth=none X-Spam-SWARE-Status: No, score=-3.2 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,SPF_PASS autolearn=ham version=3.3.1 spammy= X-HELO: eggs.gnu.org Received: from eggs.gnu.org (HELO eggs.gnu.org) (209.51.188.92) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.93/v0.84-503-g423c35a) with ESMTP; Tue, 30 Apr 2019 17:17:26 +0000 Received: from fencepost.gnu.org ([2001:470:142:3::e]:51085) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1hLWNg-00075V-35; Tue, 30 Apr 2019 13:17:24 -0400 Received: from [176.228.60.248] (port=3353 helo=home-c4e4a596f7) by fencepost.gnu.org with esmtpsa (TLS1.2:RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA1:256) (Exim 4.82) (envelope-from ) id 1hLWNe-00069n-Ut; Tue, 30 Apr 2019 13:17:23 -0400 Date: Tue, 30 Apr 2019 17:17:00 -0000 Message-Id: <83v9yvquoz.fsf@gnu.org> From: Eli Zaretskii To: Pedro Alves CC: lrn1986@gmail.com, gdb-patches@sourceware.org In-reply-to: <014135c5-5bb8-d451-ec7a-6d765b1ea5f5@redhat.com> (message from Pedro Alves on Tue, 30 Apr 2019 18:03:57 +0100) Subject: Re: Fix compilation using mingw.org's MinGW References: <835zrbe36c.fsf@gnu.org> <250801eb-14f6-5a35-0556-cf5797dd8a7b@redhat.com> <83y347cfbu.fsf@gnu.org> <556cefd7-47ce-54ab-a228-2c727aab4179@redhat.com> <83d0lick7o.fsf@gnu.org> <93ccb0fa-8a05-60ff-d1a8-85d5663b8d16@redhat.com> <831s1murm2.fsf@gnu.org> <365578d2-82fb-8860-26e6-1b31a63632ed@gmail.com> <83imuvsefv.fsf@gnu.org> <014135c5-5bb8-d451-ec7a-6d765b1ea5f5@redhat.com> X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: GNU/Linux 2.2.x-3.x [generic] X-IsSubscribed: yes X-SW-Source: 2019-04/txt/msg00660.txt.bz2 > Cc: gdb-patches@sourceware.org > From: Pedro Alves > Date: Tue, 30 Apr 2019 18:03:57 +0100 > > The issue is where is that default set? On some internal header file (it differs between various flavors of MinGW). But no matter where it is set, it must be defined after _any_ standard header is included, so in practice I think it's defined at the place where the patch tests for it. In any case, the only platform which really needs this is mingw.org's MinGW, where I actually tested this assumption. The other two, MinGW64 and Cygwin, don't support older platforms (they actually don't support XP anymore, only Vista and onward), so their default values are higher than 0x0501 anyway.