RE: MinGW cleanup patch

[Peter Ekberg]

Ralf Wildenhues wrote:
>* Peter Ekberg wrote on Wed, Nov 03, 2004 at 11:50:14AM CET:
>> 
>> The second hunk is perhaps a bit messy though, some other
>> solution might be better...
>
>Why does MinGW declare execv in a broken way?  Can't they fix that?

I don't know. Sorry. I might muster some energy and ask them, but
I'm not sure I'm going to bother.


>Are you familiar with MinGW dynamic linking issues?  I've been trying

Not really. Sorry...

>to understand why the mdemo stuff fails, but so far failed to see a way
>out (short of removing *_LTX_preloaded_symbols in favor of a function
>returning a pointer to local storage).  See the thread at
>http://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/libtool-patches/2004-10/msg00184.html
>Pointers to helpful relevant docs are greatly appreciated as well.
>
>What's quite annoying for me is that just a simple test takes forever,
>not even speaking of the whole testsuite.

Cheers,
Peter