This is the mail archive of the cygwin@sources.redhat.com mailing list for the Cygwin project.


Index Nav: [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav: [Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]

RE: compiling python under cygwin


I have had problems porting a large system because of the winsock.h include.
For one thing, I was having a problem with WIN32/_WIN32 being suddenly
defined (by something that winsock.h includes) in conditional code.  It took
me a while to track down what was going on.

Laurence F. Wood
Chief Science Officer
Sunyata Systems Corporation
Tel: 732-701-9746
Fax: 732-701-9748
www.sunyatasystems.com

"Pioneers in High Fidelity Computational Biochemistry
for Lead Optimization and Compound Synthesis"



-----Original Message-----
From: cygwin-owner@sources.redhat.com
[mailto:cygwin-owner@sources.redhat.com]On Behalf Of Chris Faylor
Sent: Thursday, October 05, 2000 12:25 AM
To: cygwin@sources.redhat.com
Subject: Re: compiling python under cygwin


On Wed, Oct 04, 2000 at 11:32:53PM -0400, Norman Vine wrote:
>>How about a few more details other than "fail compilation" before any
>>decisions are made?
>
>It is my understanding that the 'reason' for Cygwin is so one can
>write Posix code that will run on a Windows platform.  By including
><winsock.h> any code written to use the Posix headers
> <netdb.h>  <sys/socket.h>  <netinet/in.h>
>will have numerous namespace collisions.
>
>Perhaps it would be advantageous performance wise to use
>the native Windows sockets rather then the Cygwin Posix sockets
>but that IMHO rather defeats the purpose of Cygwin

You realize that you posted this insightful observation about an hour
after Jason helpfully posted the details that I asked for and about
fifty minutes after I sent this:

>Ok.  You've convinced me.  tcp.h is conflicting with sys/socket.h among
>other things.  I'll remove the winsock.h reference.

Right?  I've waited a little while to see if that realization has sunk
in but apparently it hasn't.

In case it isn't obvious, I'd like people to think about posting
*details* when they report problems.  Posting "fail to compile" (no
offense, Jason) is not helpful to anyone else reading the list.

I was pretty sure when I saw the email how I'd screwed up by including
winsock.h but a terse exchange of:

"It failed to compile.  Please make tcp.h empty."

"Ok, I will."

is not useful reading for anyone.

And, of course, if I did make the change, I would only be ass*u*ming
that I understood the reason for removing winsock.h.

Now, however, we have some nice details in the archives for people to
ignore at a later date when someone wonders why tcp.h is empty.

I have this possibly fruitless hope that if I keep asking for details,
eventually people will provide them.  I hate to be making this point in
any way around email from Jason, since he is usually very good at
providing said details, and has been a valuable Cygwin contributor, but
since you seemed to think that I needed to be educated about the reason
for Cygwin, I've returned the favor to educate you in the proper way to
report problems.

I'm sure you appreciated the education as much as I did.

cgf

--
Want to unsubscribe from this list?
Send a message to cygwin-unsubscribe@sourceware.cygnus.com



--
Want to unsubscribe from this list?
Send a message to cygwin-unsubscribe@sourceware.cygnus.com


Index Nav: [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav: [Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]