List Archive
Thread
-
MinGW-w64 build failure with 1.3.1 and 1.3.2,
Benjamin Gilbert
(2017/11/20 11:53:35)
-
Re: MinGW-w64 build failure with 1.3.1 and 1.3.2,
Thomas Klausner
(2017/11/20 12:07:03)
-
Re: MinGW-w64 build failure with 1.3.1 and 1.3.2,
Benjamin Gilbert
(2017/11/20 12:11:32)
- Re: MinGW-w64 build failure with 1.3.1 and 1.3.2, Thomas Klausner (2017/11/20 12:16:59)
- Re: MinGW-w64 build failure with 1.3.1 and 1.3.2, Lubomir I. Ivanov (2017/11/20 12:31:49)
- Re: MinGW-w64 build failure with 1.3.1 and 1.3.2, Benjamin Gilbert (2017/11/21 01:46:40)
- [PATCH] Don't build nonrandomopentest on Windows., Benjamin Gilbert (2017/11/24 14:20:42)
-
Re: MinGW-w64 build failure with 1.3.1 and 1.3.2,
Benjamin Gilbert
(2017/11/20 12:11:32)
-
Re: MinGW-w64 build failure with 1.3.1 and 1.3.2,
Thomas Klausner
(2017/11/20 12:07:03)
Message
On Mon, Nov 20, 2017 at 07:11:29AM -0500, Benjamin Gilbert wrote: > On Mon, Nov 20, 2017 at 7:07 AM, Thomas Klausner <tk%giga.or.at@localhost> > wrote: > > > On Mon, Nov 20, 2017 at 06:53:31AM -0500, Benjamin Gilbert wrote: > > > libzip 1.3.1 and 1.3.2 fail to build with MinGW-w64: > > > > > > nonrandomopentest.c: In function 'main': > > > nonrandomopentest.c:51:39: error: macro "open" requires 3 arguments, but > > > only 2 given > > > fd = open("/dev/urandom", O_RDONLY); > > > > This looks like a problem in MinGW. POSIX defines open like this: > > > > int open(const char *path, int oflag, ...) > > > > i.e. two arguments are required, more are allowed. > > > True. However, compat.h defines open like this: > > #if defined(HAVE__OPEN) > #define open(a, b, c) _open((a), (b)) > #endif Good point. Is MinGW's open() fine (file permissions, see comment above that)? What would be the proper ifdef to check for MinGW and not redefine open() there? Thomas
Made by MHonArc.