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

[Larry Hall (Cygwin)]

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