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.

--
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