This is the mail archive of the cygwin mailing list for the Cygwin project.


Index Nav: [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav: [Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]
Other format: [Raw text]

Re: Rebuilding cygwin1.dll - error: "TRANSACTION_ALL_ACCESS" redefined [-Werror]


On 10/27/2013 5:51 AM, Corinna Vinschen wrote:
On Oct 26 21:27, Christopher Faylor wrote:
On Sat, Oct 26, 2013 at 11:47:04AM +0200, Corinna Vinschen wrote:
On Oct 26 02:25, Christopher Faylor wrote:
On Sat, Oct 26, 2013 at 10:14:01AM +0400, Alexey Pavlov wrote:
/usr/include/w32api/winnt.h:3541:20: error: previous definition of
?struct _EXCEPTION_REGISTRATION_RECORD?
     typedef struct _EXCEPTION_REGISTRATION_RECORD {
                    ^
In file included from /work/Cygwin/winsup/cygwin/exception.h:15:0,
                 from /work/Cygwin/winsup/cygwin/cygtls.cc:20:
/work/Cygwin/winsup/cygwin/include/exceptions.h:109:17: error: invalid
type in declaration before ?;? token
} exception_list;
                 ^
/work/Cygwin/winsup/cygwin/../Makefile.common:43: recipe for target
'cygtls.o' failed
make[3]: *** [cygtls.o] Error 1

Feel free to provide patches.  Simple compilation issues do not
require copyright assignment.

I applied a patch.  The redefinition of _exception_list to
_EXCEPTION_REGISTRATION_RECORD for x86_64 was cruft from a very early
"just build, goddammit" porting stage.  Later on it turned out that
x86_64 doesn't use frame based exception handling anyway so all the
code using _exception_list is unused on x86_64 anyway.

I also changed the public header <exceptions.h> so that it only
applies if !x86_64.

That leads to a question:

Why on earth do we have a *public* header exposing the exception
handling on a certain CPU?  This isn't a standard header, neither POSIX
nor Linux nor BSD systems have it.

If there isn't a compelling reason to keep the header, I would opt
for folding the content into the private Cygwin header exception.h
and drop the public header entirely.

I think its existence predates me.  I vote to nuke it.

2 pro votes, 0 dissenting votes.  Done.  I just hope the voting period
wasn't too short...

I demand a recount! ;-)

--
Larry

_____________________________________________________________________

A: Yes.
> Q: Are you sure?
>> A: Because it reverses the logical flow of conversation.
>>> Q: Why is top posting annoying in email?

--
Problem reports:       http://cygwin.com/problems.html
FAQ:                   http://cygwin.com/faq/
Documentation:         http://cygwin.com/docs.html
Unsubscribe info:      http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple


Index Nav: [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav: [Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]