joyent / libuv

Go to
https://github.com/libuv/libuv
3.27k stars 653 forks source link

Fix mingw32 build #1575

Closed mattn closed 10 years ago

mattn commented 10 years ago

mingw32 doesn't have OnLinkPrefixLength

saghul commented 10 years ago

Does MinGW64 also not have it?

mattn commented 10 years ago

It seems OK to me

https://gitorious.org/w64/w64/source/389d24fb1dc74d849fcf3794989924c39d6c0a18:mingw-w64-headers/include/iptypes.h#L96-105

piscisaureus commented 10 years ago

I disagree with this patch; on mingw builds prefix_len will simply be never assigned a value, leading to undefined behavior further down.

This issue isn't caused by mingw not supporting this API; it's simply lacking the right definitions in one of it's header files. Libuv typically carries definitions that certain toolchains might lack; take a look at src/win/winapi.h, that's where a solution should go.

mattn commented 10 years ago

@piscisaureus Ah, I notice it just now. I'll fix tommorow

huxingyi commented 10 years ago

already fixed in https://github.com/joyent/libuv/pull/1555

mattn commented 10 years ago

That is in 1.X branch. please backport to master

saghul commented 10 years ago

1.x is the stable branch. On Nov 12, 2014 12:17 AM, "mattn" notifications@github.com wrote:

That is in 1.X branch. please backport to master

— Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub https://github.com/joyent/libuv/pull/1575#issuecomment-62663515.

mattn commented 10 years ago

Yes, I know. When I will be able to build master branch on mingw32 ?

saghul commented 10 years ago

I'll merge 1.x into master after the next release. After we changed the versioning scheme I'd suggest to stick to the 1.x branch. master will eventually introduce breaking changes without notice, since that's where new development will happen. On Nov 12, 2014 10:51 AM, "mattn" notifications@github.com wrote:

Yes, I know. When I will be able to build master branch on mingw32 ?

— Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub https://github.com/joyent/libuv/pull/1575#issuecomment-62720040.