From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Eli Zaretskii Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: Re: Anyone building Emacs trunk with MinGW w64 (32 bits) Date: Tue, 26 Mar 2013 23:24:11 +0200 Message-ID: <83zjxpyhvo.fsf@gnu.org> References: <87zjxumbjf.fsf@wanadoo.es> <83vc8f1t0x.fsf@gnu.org> <87sj3jcr6t.fsf@wanadoo.es> <86zjxrs4jm.fsf@gmail.com> <87k3ovcn1r.fsf@wanadoo.es> <87fvzjcles.fsf@wanadoo.es> <83boa71a0u.fsf@gnu.org> <8738vjcgli.fsf@wanadoo.es> <834nfz16cy.fsf@gnu.org> <83wqsuzhxg.fsf@gnu.org> <87k3oubcve.fsf@wanadoo.es> <83k3ouz2oy.fsf@gnu.org> <8738vhc2dt.fsf@wanadoo.es> Reply-To: Eli Zaretskii NNTP-Posting-Host: plane.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: QUOTED-PRINTABLE X-Trace: ger.gmane.org 1364333044 6629 80.91.229.3 (26 Mar 2013 21:24:04 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@ger.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Tue, 26 Mar 2013 21:24:04 +0000 (UTC) Cc: emacs-devel@gnu.org To: =?iso-8859-1?Q?=D3scar?= Fuentes Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Tue Mar 26 22:24:31 2013 Return-path: Envelope-to: ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org Original-Received: from lists.gnu.org ([208.118.235.17]) by plane.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1UKbM5-00024s-ST for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Tue, 26 Mar 2013 22:24:29 +0100 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1]:38697 helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1UKbLh-0008PR-To for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Tue, 26 Mar 2013 17:24:05 -0400 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([208.118.235.92]:47946) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1UKbLc-0008Ld-Uq for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Tue, 26 Mar 2013 17:24:02 -0400 Original-Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1UKbLb-0003e2-4E for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Tue, 26 Mar 2013 17:24:00 -0400 Original-Received: from mtaout23.012.net.il ([80.179.55.175]:63948) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1UKbLa-0003db-T1 for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Tue, 26 Mar 2013 17:23:59 -0400 Original-Received: from conversion-daemon.a-mtaout23.012.net.il by a-mtaout23.012.net.il (HyperSendmail v2007.08) id <0MKA00G00DWC5V00@a-mtaout23.012.net.il> for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Tue, 26 Mar 2013 23:23:57 +0200 (IST) Original-Received: from HOME-C4E4A596F7 ([87.69.4.28]) by a-mtaout23.012.net.il (HyperSendmail v2007.08) with ESMTPA id <0MKA00FUTE3WY670@a-mtaout23.012.net.il>; Tue, 26 Mar 2013 23:23:57 +0200 (IST) In-reply-to: <8738vhc2dt.fsf@wanadoo.es> X-012-Sender: halo1@inter.net.il X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: Solaris 10 X-Received-From: 80.179.55.175 X-BeenThere: emacs-devel@gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.14 Precedence: list List-Id: "Emacs development discussions." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Original-Sender: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Xref: news.gmane.org gmane.emacs.devel:158249 Archived-At: > From: =D3scar Fuentes > Date: Tue, 26 Mar 2013 21:49:50 +0100 >=20 > Eli Zaretskii writes: >=20 > >> w32.c: In function 'readlink': > >> w32.c:4725:7: error: unknown type name 'REPARSE_DATA_BUFFER' > >> w32.c:4725:44: error: 'REPARSE_DATA_BUFFER' undeclared (first us= e in this function) > > > > This got me puzzled: the definition of REPARSE_DATA_BUFFER is now > > guarded by this: > > > > #ifndef MAXIMUM_REPARSE_DATA_BUFFER_SIZE > > > > Are you saying that MAXIMUM_REPARSE_DATA_BUFFER_SIZE is defined i= n the > > MinGW64 build, but REPARSE_DATA_BUFFER is not? Which MinGW64 hea= ders > > define MAXIMUM_REPARSE_DATA_BUFFER_SIZE and REPARSE_DATA_BUFFER? >=20 > winnt.h defined MAXIMUM_REPARSE_DATA_BUFFER_SIZE. REPARSE_DATA_BUFF= ER is > defined in ddk/ntifs.h, but we shouldn't use that header together w= ith > winnt.h. See the links in my message on this thread about ddk/ntifs= .h: >=20 > http://permalink.gmane.org/gmane.emacs.devel/158160 Then I guess we need to use _W64 explicitly, see revision 112147. > BTW, the setjmp issue seems fixed. Great.