Sat Aug 19 17:42:00 GMT 2017
On Aug 19 18:28, Corinna Vinschen wrote:
> On Aug 19 10:29, Ken Brown wrote:
> > Hi Corinna,
> > On 8/19/2017 5:57 AM, Corinna Vinschen wrote:
> > > Hi Ken,
> > >
> > > On Aug 18 18:24, Ken Brown wrote:
> > > The patch is ok as is, just let me know what you think of the above
> > > minor tweak (and send the revised patch if you agree).
> > Yes, I agree. But can't I also drop the third test (where you said "good
> > catch") for the same reason? I've done that in the attached. If I'm wrong
> > and I still need that third test, let me know and I'll put it back.
> Nope, you're right. Same rules apply for the third test. Patch pushed.
> Doc changes coming? :)
Oh, one more thing. This is a question to Yaakov, too.
diff --git a/newlib/libc/include/stdio.h b/newlib/libc/include/stdio.h
index 5d8cb1092..331a1cf07 100644
@@ -384,6 +384,9 @@ int _EXFUN(vdprintf, (int, const char *__restrict, __VALIST)
int _EXFUN(renameat, (int, const char *, int, const char *));
+# ifdef __CYGWIN__
+int _EXFUN(renameat2, (int, const char *, int, const char *, unsigned int));
Does it makes sense to guard the renameat2 prototype more extensively
to cater for standards junkies? __MISC_VISIBLE, perhaps?
Corinna Vinschen Please, send mails regarding Cygwin to
Cygwin Maintainer cygwin AT cygwin DOT com
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Size: 819 bytes
Desc: not available
More information about the Cygwin-patches