[Ecls-list] MinGW: pthread types vs. ECL headers

Juan Jose Garcia-Ripoll juanjose.garciaripoll at googlemail.com
Mon Apr 5 19:37:37 UTC 2010

On Mon, Apr 5, 2010 at 7:25 PM, Samium Gromoff
<_deepfire at feelingofgreen.ru>wrote:
> The question is, whether it still makes sense to provide that define
> when MinGW already provides one.  I can imagine, though, that history
> proved the MinGW-provided definition to be volatile.

Volatilty was one reason. Another one is that ECL is supposed to provide the
kind of "host" as a macro (mingw, cygwin, etc). In the last months I have
come to realize that this is not good practice, for it pollutes the
preprocessor namespace. I would say moving towards more standard macros, and
providing some sanity checks (that these names do not change or disappear)
would be the desird route.


Instituto de Física Fundamental, CSIC
c/ Serrano, 113b, Madrid 28006 (Spain)
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://mailman.common-lisp.net/pipermail/ecl-devel/attachments/20100405/52540e70/attachment.html>

More information about the ecl-devel mailing list