On Fri, May 6, 2011 at 9:10 AM, James Y Knight <foom@fuhm.net> wrote:
> On Thu, May 5, 2011 at 9:39 PM, Elliott Slaughter <
> elliottslaughter@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> On Thu, May 5, 2011 at 5:30 PM, Elliott Slaughter <
>> elliottslaughter@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> On Thu, May 5, 2011 at 2:40 PM, Juho Snellman <jsnell@iki.fi> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Wed, May 4, 2011 at 9:36 PM, Elliott Slaughter <
>>>> elliottslaughter@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On Wed, May 4, 2011 at 12:31 PM, David Lichteblau
>>>>> <david@lichteblau.com
>>>>> > wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Hi,
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Quoting Elliott Slaughter (elliottslaughter@gmail.com):
>>>>>> > Could you please take a look at
>>>>>> https://bugs.launchpad.net/sbcl/+bug/777339 ?
>>>>>> > I can't build on MinGW without this patch.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> shouldn't it test whether the gcc in PATH is a cygwin gcc, rather
>>>>>> than
>>>>>> just whether uname indicates cygwin?
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Quite possibly. I could write such a patch for that later today if
>>>>> you
>>>>> think that's a better idea than my current patch.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> That would be a nicer approach. If you have time to do it, that'd be
>>>> great. If not, I can apply the existing patch.
>>>>
>>>
>>> How about this:
>>
>>
>> Slight tweak: The last patch accidentally set execute permission on the
>> file and this patch avoids that.
>>
>
> Thought of something else: I should be testing CC instead of gcc in case
> someone ends up pointing CC to something else.
>
> https://bugs.launchpad.net/sbcl/+bug/777339/+attachment/2116028/+files/patch2.2.txt
>
> Hopefully this is the final version of the patch, unless anyone finds any
> other issues.

You should be checking $CC -dumpmachine rather than --version.

Ok, new patch:

https://bugs.launchpad.net/sbcl/+bug/777339/+attachment/2116985/+files/patch3.txt

Comments welcome.

--
Elliott Slaughter

"Don't worry about what anybody else is going to do. The best way to predict the future is to invent it." - Alan Kay