On Fri, 26 Mar 2021, Jacek Caban wrote:
On 26/03/2021 12:22, Martin Storsjö wrote:
As there's no code that could be using the new UCRT spelling using any
public headers, there's nothing we can try to remain compatible with in
that case, so we'd only be setting new predecent (i.e. if building with
mingw headers, and iff targeting UCRT, then access the field with a
different name).
I.e., I'm a bit hesitant about whether we should be doing this at all, or
if we should follow suit and make it a similar struct containing only the
first member instead?
In my opinion it was the right call by Microsoft to do that, so it would be
nice to follow.
Sure, that sounds sensible to me too.
That also brings up the question about the origin of pointing out this
mismatching struct (by "sotrdg sotrdg" on the list a couple days ago) -
was there code that used those fields, noticing that it didn't do the
right thing in UCRT builds? Or just reading/inspecting of source,
comparing things?
// Martin
_______________________________________________
Mingw-w64-public mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/mingw-w64-public
