From: SourceForge.net <no...@so...> - 2008-06-06 20:04:58
|
Patches item #1951037, was opened at 2008-04-24 18:38 Message generated for change (Comment added) made by bartoldeman You can respond by visiting: https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?func=detail&atid=302435&aid=1951037&group_id=2435 Please note that this message will contain a full copy of the comment thread, including the initial issue submission, for this request, not just the latest update. Category: None Group: None >Status: Closed >Resolution: Invalid Priority: 5 Private: No Submitted By: Bart Oldeman (bartoldeman) Assigned to: Nobody/Anonymous (nobody) Summary: Vista argv[0] non-fully qualified pathname workaround. Initial Comment: Hi, the attached patch works around a Vista change that changed argv[0] to not contain the fully qualified pathname. See also: http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=35916 ---------------------------------------------------------------------- >Comment By: Bart Oldeman (bartoldeman) Date: 2008-06-06 21:04 Message: Logged In: YES user_id=176505 Originator: YES The problem was fixed and was indeed somewhere else; it had to do with libiberty not being compiled with the access X_OK workaround. see again: http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=35916 ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Comment By: Bart Oldeman (bartoldeman) Date: 2008-04-25 18:41 Message: Logged In: YES user_id=176505 Originator: YES I meant rename, as in CMD.EXE, like this: move c:\mingw c:\mingw2 path %PATH%;c:\mingw2\bin gcc foo.c ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Comment By: Earnie Boyd (earnie) Date: 2008-04-25 18:09 Message: Logged In: YES user_id=15438 Originator: NO By relocate you mean Rename or Copy, which one? ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Comment By: Bart Oldeman (bartoldeman) Date: 2008-04-25 13:51 Message: Logged In: YES user_id=176505 Originator: YES I'm sorry, I thought it gives the fully qualified pathname, but just checked on Windows 2000 and it does not. But there is something strange going on: if I relocate MINGW gcc, say from c:\mingw to c:\mingw2, and call it from cmd.exe, then gcc will find its helpers (cc1.exe etc) in c:\mingw2\... This works on Win2k but not on Vista (and also not for the gcc you referred to on Vista). This is the problem in PR 35916 with MINGW compiled gfortran binaries, that are placed in c:\program files\gfortran\bin I thought that had to do with argv[0] as that is where gcc derives its path from. But apparently there is something else going on. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Comment By: Danny Smith (dannysmith) Date: 2008-04-25 03:55 Message: Logged In: YES user_id=11494 Originator: NO int main(int argc, char **argv) { printf("%s\n",argv[0]); } Why do you think that argv[0] should be the fully qualified pathname on Vista? It isn't on XP or Win98 { unless you actually give the exe the fully qualified pathname}. What I meant, does the new gcc 3.4.5 release fix PR 35916? Danny ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Comment By: Bart Oldeman (bartoldeman) Date: 2008-04-25 01:17 Message: Logged In: YES user_id=176505 Originator: YES Yes, I checked with a quick int main(int argc, char **argv) { printf("%s\n",argv[0]); } the problem is specifically in crt1.o and crt2.o that are part of the MinGW runtime. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Comment By: Danny Smith (dannysmith) Date: 2008-04-25 00:19 Message: Logged In: YES user_id=11494 Originator: NO Is this patch necessary with latest gcc-3.4.5 for Vista (3.4.5-20060117-3) https://sourceforge.net/project/showfiles.php?group_id=2435&release_id=428244 Danny ---------------------------------------------------------------------- You can respond by visiting: https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?func=detail&atid=302435&aid=1951037&group_id=2435 |