[Top][All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: Building CVS on Windows is broken...again

From: Dennis Jones
Subject: Re: Building CVS on Windows is broken...again
Date: Sun, 15 Feb 2004 14:00:50 -0800

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Derek Robert Price" <address@hidden>
To: "Dennis Jones" <address@hidden>
Cc: "CVS Mailing List" <address@hidden>
Sent: Sunday, February 15, 2004 11:03 AM
Subject: Re: Building CVS on Windows is broken...again

> Dennis Jones wrote:
> >The latest version of CVS (1.11.13) fails to build on Windows...again.
> If you'd like to volunteer to set up nightly testing on Windows for the
> CVS tree...

Well actually, I could do that, but since the only version of VC++ I have is
5.0, I would only be able to build from that particular perspective.  On the
other hand, if VC++ 5.0 is the lowest common denominator of build
environments, then perhaps building with VC++ 5.0 would be a *good* thing.
So, if it is just a matter of setting up an automated nightly check-out (or
update) and build of the CVS code, I certainly could do that.  However, I
couldn't possibly commit to anything more than that.

> Actually, set_nonblock_fd() used to be in server.c, which wasn't
> compiled on Windows, and I simply moved it into subr.c, which is
> compiled under Windows.  You are correct about my not knowing fcntl()
> wouldn't be available under Windows, however.

As Larry Jones suggested, maybe it should be moved back to server.c.  Why
was it moved to begin with (not that I care or need to know)?  It is only
used in server.c and buffer.c anyway.

> Now, are you _sure_ there is no equivalent to fcntl() under Windows?  I
> notice that both windows-nt/run.c and windows-nt/rcmd.c are including
> <fcntl.h>.

Under Windows, fcntl.h doesn't include any function prototypes -- it only
defines the file control options used by the _open() function.

> Are you certain there isn't just some library we're
> neglecting to include or some other function name (like "_fcntl()") we
> should be using?  I've seen similar problems with other POSIX functions
> under Windows.

Now, as far as some other function you should be using for Windows, I don't
do much low-level file I/O in my work, so I wouldn't be able to answer that
question without doing a fair amount of research.

- Dennis Jones

[This E-mail Scanned for viruses by]

reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]