[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: 3.0.1 release? (report on mingw)
From: |
Michael Goffioul |
Subject: |
Re: 3.0.1 release? (report on mingw) |
Date: |
Tue, 8 Apr 2008 13:57:36 +0200 |
On Tue, Apr 8, 2008 at 8:48 AM, Tatsuro MATSUOKA <address@hidden> wrote:
> Hello
>
> To test what Michae pointed out. I used lo-sysdep.cc in 3.0.1a.
>
> I have confirmed the stream.
> file-ops.h > str-vec.h > Array.h > lo-utils.h > windows.h (around line 69).
[snip]
> I manually modified the config.h as
>
> 386 /* Define to 1 if you have the `LoadLibrary' function. */
> 387 #define HAVE_LOADLIBRARY 1 /* #undef HAVE_LOADLIBRARY */
>
> After that lo-sysdep.cc was complied without problem.
> So serious problem in mingw for is LoadLibrary (); check failes.
You have to be careful here and not mix up HAVE_LOADLIBRARY and
HAVE_LOADLIBRARY_API. These correspond to 2 different things in
the configure script:
1) HAVE_LOADLIBRARY is defined when the configure script detects
the presence of LoadLibrary; however the check is buggy and it is always
false, even on my system. I explained it in an earlier mail: LoadLibrary
per se does NOT exist, it's either LoadLibraryA or LoadLibraryW; LoadLibrary
is then simply #define'ed in some windows headers. The way the configure
check is built cannot deal with this situation because the generated
conftest.c does not include windows.h. In summary, on your platform,
HAVE_LOADLIBRARY should not be defined and that's normal; it's
the same for me.
2) HAVE_LOADLIBRARY_API is defined unconditionally by the configure
script (configure.in: around line 1467) on Win32 platform (cygwin, msvc and
mingw). So on your platform, HAVE_LOADLIBRARY_API *should* be
defined; if it is not, then there's a serious problem. You should then look
at $canonical_host_type variable within the configure script to see why it
does not match the "case" statement (see configure.in to see what I mean).
Now if you look at lo-utils.h, you'll see that windows.h inclusion is
dependent on HAVE_LOADLIBRARY_API; so it's point 2) above that
is important, and you can forget about point 1).
Hope this helps.
Michael.
- Re: 3.0.1 release?, (continued)
- Re: 3.0.1 release? (cygwin), Tatsuro MATSUOKA, 2008/04/08
- Re: 3.0.1 release?, Michael Goffioul, 2008/04/08
- Re: 3.0.1 release?, David Bateman, 2008/04/08
- Re: 3.0.1 release?, Michael Goffioul, 2008/04/08
- RE: 3.0.1 release?, Bateman David-ADB014, 2008/04/08
- Re: 3.0.1 release?, Michael Goffioul, 2008/04/08
- Re: 3.0.1 release?, David Bateman, 2008/04/08
- Re: 3.0.1 release?, Michael Goffioul, 2008/04/08
- Re: 3.0.1 release?, David Bateman, 2008/04/08