Re: MINGW build

[Paul Kienzle]

On Thu, Oct 10, 2002 at 01:19:26AM -0500, John W. Eaton wrote:
> On 23-Sep-2002, Mumit Khan <address@hidden> wrote:
> 
> | I do have a comment on using the pre-processor macro/s to determine
> | the system or system type. If you want a Windows 32 bit system, then
> | it's __WIN32__ and/or __WIN32 (the non-underscored counterparts are
> | an abomination); if you want to exclude Cygwin, then it's __WIN32__ &&
> | !__CYGWIN__. Mingw is plain Windows32, and thus covered by __WIN32__,
> | and there is typically never a good reason to use __MINGW32__ explicitly,
> | unless you're taking advantage of something specific in Mingw helper
> | libraries.

The following prints __WIN32__ on mingw and __CYGWIN__/__CYGWIN32__ on
cygwin.  

#include <stdio.h>
int main(int argc, char *argv[])
{
#if defined(__WIN32__)
        printf("__WIN32__\n");
#endif
#if defined(__CYGWIN__)
        printf("__CYGWIN__\n");
#endif
#if defined(__CYGWIN32__)
        printf("__CYGWIN32__\n");
#endif
#if defined(__WIN__)
        printf("__WIN__\n");
#endif
}

So should we be using defined(__WIN32__) to mean that we should use the
win32api directly rather than going through the Cygwin posix layer?
Currently we are using defined(__WIN32__) && !defined(_POSIX_VERSION).

I have no particular desire to do so, but it may be possible for someone
to use an alternative unix emulation layer (e.g., Uwin).  Should we be defining
USE_WINDOWS_PATHNAMES instead of defined(__CYGWIN__)||defined(__WIN32__)?

So far the Windows build is not much of an issue.  The following displays
16 lines in my source tree:

        grep "__.*WIN" {liboctave,src}/*.{c,cc,h} | less

Paul Kienzle
address@hidden