Although the file io.h from MinGW/include has a patch, I still have not be
able to use effectively the new build of gcc. I build it from a latop with a
semprom and execute it in a desktop pc with a core 2 duo. The result is the
same every time, there is a problem installation and it tells that
-Original Message-
From: Brian Dessent [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Tuesday, May 08, 2007 3:21 PM
To: Mark Mitchell
Cc: gcc@gcc.gnu.org; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: MinGW, GCC Vista,
Mark Mitchell wrote:
In my opinion, this is a GCC bug: there's no such thing as X_OK
Hi,
Do you guys know if the problem with the access() standard library function has
been worked around?
Windows vista has an updated MSVCRT.DLL which returns false for access() using
X_OK, this parameter was previously ignored, and returned true. MinGW / GCC
does not work on Vista as a result.
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Do you guys know if the problem with the access() standard library function
has
been worked around?
Windows vista has an updated MSVCRT.DLL which returns false for access() using
X_OK, this parameter was previously ignored, and returned true. MinGW / GCC
does not
Brian Dessent wrote:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Do you guys know if the problem with the access() standard library function
has
been worked around?
Windows vista has an updated MSVCRT.DLL which returns false for access()
using
X_OK, this parameter was previously ignored, and returned
Mark Mitchell writes:
In my opinion, this is a GCC bug: there's no such thing as X_OK on
Windows (it's not in the Microsoft headers, or documented by Microsoft
as part of the API), and so GCC shouldn't be using it.
Strictly speaking, access() (or _access()) isn't a documented part of
any Windows
Mark Mitchell wrote:
I'm disappointed to hear that MinGW made this change. As a MinGW user,
I don't want MinGW to interpose anything between me and the MSVCRT
libraries. I want MinGW to give me headers and import libraries for the
Microsoft DLLs, with all their warts; nothing more, nothing
Ross Ridge wrote:
Mark Mitchell writes:
In my opinion, this is a GCC bug: there's no such thing as X_OK on
Windows (it's not in the Microsoft headers, or documented by Microsoft
as part of the API), and so GCC shouldn't be using it.
Strictly speaking, access() (or _access()) isn't a
