This is the mail archive of the
binutils@sourceware.cygnus.com
mailing list for the binutils project.
Re: (Fwd) Re: Absolute paths in BFD
- To: ian at zembu dot com
- Subject: Re: (Fwd) Re: Absolute paths in BFD
- From: Eli Zaretskii <eliz at delorie dot com>
- Date: Mon, 1 May 2000 03:51:09 -0400 (EDT)
- CC: snowball3 at bigfoot dot com, binutils at sourceware dot cygnus dot com
- References: <3908583E.11552.3CB4AE@localhost> <200004282205.SAA26918@indy.delorie.com> <20000428222828.23316.qmail@daffy.airs.com> <200004292206.SAA28159@indy.delorie.com> <20000430024722.24796.qmail@daffy.airs.com> <200004301353.JAA29039@indy.delorie.com> <20000430194648.25814.qmail@daffy.airs.com>
- Reply-to: Eli Zaretskii <eliz at is dot elta dot co dot il>
> Date: 30 Apr 2000 12:46:48 -0700
> From: Ian Lance Taylor <ian@zembu.com>
>
> > > Yes, I think setmode could be a problem. It might be best to test for
> > > that separately.
> >
> > Testing (in the Autoconf sense) could be non-trivial. Perhaps using
> > setmode for DOS and Windows (conditioned on appropriate
> > system-dependent macros, like __MSDOS__ and _WIN32) would be good
> > enough?
> >
> > Why is an autoconf test non-trivial?
>
> Because it turns out there are systems (I think FreeBSD is one of
> them) which have an incompatible function by the same name.
>
> Are there any systems which define O_BINARY but for which setmode is
> not compatible with the DOS version?
I'm not aware of such systems. But then until a few weeks ago I
didn't know FreeBSD had setmode, either.
Anyway, I can add an Autoconf test for setmode and use HAVE_SETMODE
only if O_BINARY is defined and has a non-zero value. Would that be
okay?