From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 2522 invoked by alias); 1 Nov 2016 16:33:34 -0000 Mailing-List: contact zsh-workers-help@zsh.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk X-No-Archive: yes List-Id: Zsh Workers List List-Post: List-Help: X-Seq: 39801 Received: (qmail 23403 invoked from network); 1 Nov 2016 16:33:34 -0000 X-Qmail-Scanner-Diagnostics: from 173-228-5-241.dsl.static.fusionbroadband.com by f.primenet.com.au (envelope-from , uid 7791) with qmail-scanner-2.11 (clamdscan: 0.99.2/21882. spamassassin: 3.4.1. Clear:RC:0(173.228.5.241):SA:0(0.0/5.0):. Processed in 0.382387 secs); 01 Nov 2016 16:33:34 -0000 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.1 (2015-04-28) on f.primenet.com.au X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=0.0 required=5.0 tests=SPF_PASS,TVD_RCVD_IP autolearn=unavailable autolearn_force=no version=3.4.1 X-Envelope-From: doctor@fruitbat.org X-Qmail-Scanner-Mime-Attachments: | X-Qmail-Scanner-Zip-Files: | Received-SPF: pass (ns1.primenet.com.au: SPF record at fruitbat.org designates 173.228.5.241 as permitted sender) Date: Tue, 1 Nov 2016 09:31:54 -0700 (PDT) From: "Peter A. Castro" To: "Jun T." cc: "zsh-workers@zsh.org" Subject: Re: [PATCH} define _GNU_SOURCE on Cygwin In-Reply-To: Message-ID: References: <9E7FD5B2-061D-4ABE-84A8-A54C844E34BE@kba.biglobe.ne.jp> <20161026105652.GA14865@fujitsu.shahaf.local2> <20161027013438.GB15799@fujitsu.shahaf.local2> User-Agent: Alpine 2.00 (LNX 1167 2008-08-23) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed On Tue, 1 Nov 2016, Jun T. wrote: > Date: Tue, 1 Nov 2016 21:11:22 +0900 > From: Jun T. Greetings, Jun, > On 2016/10/31, at 15:15, Peter A. Castro wrote: > >> I built with Cygwin 1.7.35 > > Thanks. You are welcome. :) >> With the proposed patch from Jun, zsh compiles, links and runs the check tests "adequately". > > Did you get any "new" warnings when building with the patch? > (new = no warning without the patch) No, no "new" warnings. >> I say "adequately" because there were 2 test failures, 5 skipped and 40 successful. > > Do the same 2 tests fail if you do not apply the patch? As I said, I have always gotten 2 test failures (essentially the same tests failing). Your patch does not change this result. >> As a result, I only applied the change to zsh_system.h, which was successful. > > Yes, that is sufficient to test the patch. Fair enough. > Jun -- --=> Peter A. Castro Email: doctor at fruitbat dot org / Peter dot Castro at oracle dot com "Cats are just autistic Dogs" -- Dr. Tony Attwood