Re: [Mingw-users] Problems compiling Gnulib-assisted projects with MinGW runtime 3.22.2
- Date: Wed, 12 Oct 2016 17:34:32 +0300
- From: Eli Zaretskii <eliz@xxxxxxx>
- Subject: Re: [Mingw-users] Problems compiling Gnulib-assisted projects with MinGW runtime 3.22.2
> From: Keith Marshall <keithmarshall@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> Date: Wed, 12 Oct 2016 14:47:20 +0100
> On 11/10/16 07:34, Eli Zaretskii wrote:
> > "Whine"? I think this was uncalled for, and completely
> > undeserved.
> I don't understand your objection. You, yourself, described it as a
I can call myself names whenever I want. ;-)
> > A MinGW-compiled GDB 7.12 is available for MinGW users, regardless
> > of the problems I bumped into, just 2 days since it was released.
> > I posted my message only after I built and uploaded it. How is
> > that "whining"?
> In the sense of "persistent complaining" it isn't, but did you file a
> bug report against GDB, for its gratuitous violation of the applicable
> standards, by assuming that strcasecmp() and strncasecmp() should be
> declared in <string.h>, rather than in <strings.h> where they belong?
> Indeed, the declarations in glibc's <string.h> would appear to be an
> anachronistic aberration ... allegedly to support BSD usage. However,
> the strcasecmp(3) manpages for the three common BSD distributions,
> FreeBSD, OpenBSD, and NetBSD, all agree that <strings.h> is correct.
> All add the historical annotation that the two functions made their
> first appearances in 4.4BSD; FreeBSD adds the qualification:
> > The strcasecmp() and strncasecmp() functions first appeared in
> > 4.4BSD. Their prototypes existed previously in <string.h> before
> > they were moved to <strings.h> for IEEE Std 1003.1-2001
> > (``POSIX.1'') compliance.
> so, the claimed BSD support in glibc is "archaic legacy", at best;
> today, any dependence on it really should be considered a bug.
I agree that strings.h is the right place. I'm just saying that if
glibc allows itself to deviate from the standards there, it isn't
MinGW's place to be holier than the Pope. Doing so just means we are
shooting ourselves in the foot.
> I accept that MinGW may not be considered sufficiently important to
> persuade upstream projects to fix this bug, but surely the three main
> BSD distributions would be? You really should file that bug report,
> (especially since you obviously know how to resolve it).
I did file a bug.
I still think it would be good to consider relaxing our standard
compliance in this one case, even though we are right and glibc is
Check out the vibrant tech community on one of the world's most
engaging tech sites, SlashDot.org! http://sdm.link/slashdot
MinGW-users mailing list
This list observes the Etiquette found at
We ask that you be polite and do the same. Disregard for the list etiquette may cause your account to be moderated.
You may change your MinGW Account Options or unsubscribe at: