From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 4110 invoked by alias); 9 May 2002 21:21:06 -0000 Mailing-List: contact insight-help@sources.redhat.com; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: insight-owner@sources.redhat.com Received: (qmail 4103 invoked from network); 9 May 2002 21:21:06 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO cygnus.com) (205.180.83.203) by sources.redhat.com with SMTP; 9 May 2002 21:21:06 -0000 Received: from makita.cygnus.com (makita.sfbay.redhat.com [192.168.30.83]) by runyon.cygnus.com (8.8.7-cygnus/8.8.7) with ESMTP id OAA00830; Thu, 9 May 2002 14:21:00 -0700 (PDT) Received: from localhost (keiths@localhost) by makita.cygnus.com (8.8.8+Sun/8.6.4) with ESMTP id OAA01360; Thu, 9 May 2002 14:20:59 -0700 (PDT) X-Authentication-Warning: makita.cygnus.com: keiths owned process doing -bs Date: Thu, 09 May 2002 14:21:00 -0000 From: Keith Seitz X-X-Sender: To: Mo DeJong cc: Subject: Re: [Patch] Fixup tcl and expect build under Cygwin In-Reply-To: <20020509142009.499f1d81.supermo@bayarea.net> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII X-SW-Source: 2002-q2/txt/msg00092.txt.bz2 On Thu, 9 May 2002, Mo DeJong wrote: > Is there some other list that this patch should be submitted to? All the big expect users: binutils, gcc, gdb. > That -e flag is kind of interesting because it was to work around a bug > in gcc. When both a WinMain() and a main() are found gcc incorrectly > picks main() as the entry point even though -mwindows is passed. If this > problem no longer exists in Cygwin gcc then the -e could be removed. I > know it is required to build with Mingw 2.95.2, but I don't know about > later releases. If this problem does exist, it manifests itself as a > wish.exe that pops up the . window but no console. Odd. When I build with this, wish just crashes. When I remove it, wish appears. I think I ifdef'd out main() in my local sources (, which I really need to check in!) > It should break down when building Itcl under Windows. I have no idea > why you would not run into this problem aside from something obvious > like using an older config.cache that had tcl/win/tclConfig.sh cached. > You might try looking at the output of configure when the Itcl configure > is being run to see if it detects the config file in tcl/unix or > tcl/win. Maybe I already fixed this (the same way you did) in my local tree! :-) > > I'll definitely approve the unix/tclConfig.sh thing, though. I never > > understood why that was done. > > As far as I can tell, it was to avoid an error configuring expect. The > expect patch fixes that problem so I can't see any reason not to apply > the patch. Ok, cool. Well, at least apply your two tcl changes. Good luck on the expect patch. I guess if cgf is around, he would have definitive say on it. (It is, after all, a pretty simple change.) Keith