Re: [Mingw-users] implicit declaration of function `int access(...)'

[Earnie B. <ear...@ya...>]

Well if it's portability you're after then do it the autoconf way.

#if HAVE_UNISTD_H
#include <unistd.h>
#else
#if HAVE_IO_H
#include <io.h>
#endif
#endif

Earnie.


On 4/5/2002 at 9:38 AM Wu Yongwei wrote:

>This depends. If one wants one's program to run on Windows, io.h is
>better;
>if one wants one's program to compile under different flavours of
GCC/Unix,
>unistd.h might be a better idea. Microsoft and Borland compilers have not
a
>unistd.h.
>
>Best regards,
>
>Wu Yongwei
>
>--- Original Message from Arto Huusko ---
>
>On Wed, 2002-04-03 at 20:28, Oscar Fuentes wrote:
>
>> Anthony Hook <ant...@ya...> writes:
>> >
>> > implicit declaration of function `int access(...)'
>
>> [snip]
>>
>> Did you #included the header file that declares that function? Most
>> likely it is io.h
>
>I think <unistd.h> would be a "better" header file. It is more
>portable (POSIX), if this makes any difference. (Yes, mingw's
>unistd.h just includes io.h, but on some system this might not
>be the case).
>
> -- arto
>
>
>_______________________________________________
>MinGW-users mailing list
>Min...@li...
>
>You may change your MinGW Account Options or unsubscribe at:
>https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/mingw-users




_________________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Get your free @yahoo.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com