On 10/10/2016 06:22 PM, Arnaud Charlet wrote:
PS. What about last versions of other 2 not yet approved patches (1 and 3)?
There have been many back and forth and many updates, so I do not know where
we are on these. I'm pretty sure I OKed one of the other parts, but best
to resubmit them clean
> >> int
> >> __gnat_get_maximum_file_name_length (void)
> >> {
> >>+#if defined (__DJGPP__)
> >>+ return (_use_lfn(".")) ? -1 : 8;
> >>+#else
> >>return -1;
> >>+#endif
> >> }
> >Is the above change really necessary? Would be nice to get rid of this
> >extra code. The rest looks OK to me.
On 09/25/2016 07:25 PM, Arnaud Charlet wrote:
int
__gnat_get_maximum_file_name_length (void)
{
+#if defined (__DJGPP__)
+ return (_use_lfn(".")) ? -1 : 8;
+#else
return -1;
+#endif
}
Is the above change really necessary? Would be nice to get rid of this
extra code. The rest looks OK
On 09/25/2016 09:10 PM, Arnaud Charlet wrote:
Is the above change really necessary? Would be nice to get rid of this
extra code. The rest looks OK to me.
It is required for support of environment when LFN support is either
not available or disabled for some reason (for example FreeDOS
without LF
> >Is the above change really necessary? Would be nice to get rid of this
> >extra code. The rest looks OK to me.
> It is required for support of environment when LFN support is either
> not available or disabled for some reason (for example FreeDOS
> without LFN support loaded).
Does it matter fo
On 09/25/2016 07:25 PM, Arnaud Charlet wrote:
int
__gnat_get_maximum_file_name_length (void)
{
+#if defined (__DJGPP__)
+ return (_use_lfn(".")) ? -1 : 8;
+#else
return -1;
+#endif
}
Is the above change really necessary? Would be nice to get rid of this
extra code. The rest looks OK
> int
> __gnat_get_maximum_file_name_length (void)
> {
> +#if defined (__DJGPP__)
> + return (_use_lfn(".")) ? -1 : 8;
> +#else
>return -1;
> +#endif
> }
Is the above change really necessary? Would be nice to get rid of this
extra code. The rest looks OK to me.
Arno
On 09/04/2016 09:52 PM, Arnaud Charlet wrote:
This last patch (4/4) contains DJGPP related changes to adaint.c
(except one which belongs to patch 1/4).
This patch is quite intrusive. Are all these changes really needed?
New version of patch is in attachment.
char
__gnat_get_default_identi
> >This last patch (4/4) contains DJGPP related changes to adaint.c
> >(except one which belongs to patch 1/4).
This patch is quite intrusive. Are all these changes really needed?
> char
> __gnat_get_default_identifier_character_set (void)
> {
> +#if defined (__DJGPP__)
> + return 'p';
> +#el
On 07/30/2016 08:47 AM, Andris Pavenis wrote:
This last patch (4/4) contains DJGPP related changes to adaint.c (except one which belongs to
patch 1/4).
ChangeLog entry:
2016-07-30 Andris Pavenis
* ada/adaint.c: Include process.h, signal.h, dir.h and utime.h for DJGPP.
(DIR_SEPARATOR) defin
10 matches
Mail list logo