Re: [Mingw-cross-env-list] MemoryBarrier needed for dbus

[Volker Grabsch]

Tony Theodore schrieb:
> Somewhat related, this is an interesting edge case. Driving home
> tonight, trying to formulate the mingw-64 proposal in my mind, I
> decided that any patches should apply to all targets. The author of
> message [2] above, is one of the leads in the mingw-64 project, so I
> imagine that that runtime already has support for this function.
> 
> In the hypothetical multi-target scenario, how would we apply such a
> patch? In this case, it would seem to make sense to patch windows.h
> from w32api for the i686 target (assuming the x86_64 target does have
> this) instead of in dbus.

I propose to keep our current policy, which is: patches should always
be portable, anything else is a "hack" and thus a $(SED) action. With
portable I don't mean that it sould work with win32/win64, but also
on any other platform.

Although we do have exceptions from this rule [1], we should aim to
reduce those rather than encouraging more of those "dirty" patches.

I don't think this is very hard. In C/C++ we can use #ifdef, in the
build script (configure script, makefiles, etc) we have various
environment variables. So unless we don't find a corner case where
all those methods don't work anymore, I don't think we should lower
our standards for patches.

The idea is that ideally, all patches would eventually move into
upstream, or have at least a good chance of being a sensible proposal
to upstream.


Greets,
Volker


[1] for example:

    src/openexr-2-disable-zlib_winapi.patch
    src/freeimage-1-no-shared.patch

-- 
Volker Grabsch
---<<(())>>---