[cfe-dev] [PATCH] Libc++ Windows fixes

[Ruben Van Boxem]

2011/6/29 Ruben Van Boxem <vanboxem.ruben at gmail.com>:
> 2011/6/29 Ruben Van Boxem <vanboxem.ruben at gmail.com>:
>> 2011/6/29 Daniel James <dnljms at gmail.com>:
>>> On 29 June 2011 02:57, Sean Hunt <rideau3 at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> On 11-06-28 12:15 PM, Ruben Van Boxem wrote:
>>>>> The cerrno macro's are from Boost, so "yes, they are correct", and
>>>>> "no, there are no license restrictions whatsoever". The _strto*_l
>>>>> functions are available on Windows msvcrt version 7. That's the
>>>>> default somewhere Vista/7-ish, so those aren't available on XP. I
>>>>> believe the Linux locale patch also takes into consideration providing
>>>>> a Windows alternative with little or no modification.
>>>>
>>>> Boost libraries are not necessarily under the BSL, and the copyright
>>>> disclaimer requires reproduction in order to take BSLed code. I don't
>>>> think Chris Lattner wants to mix in foreign-licensed code for that reason.
>>>
>>> The file the code comes from should contain copyright details,
>>> including the name of the copyright owner who could possibly release
>>> the code under another license.
>>
>> The person to contact would be
>> http://www.boost.org/users/people/beman_dawes.html
>>
>> If someone "official" from libc++/LLVM/Clang could ask him, there's
>> probably a better chance of success instead of everyone asking
>> everyone who needs to be asked and told what. Specifically me not
>> knowing who Mr. Dawes should inform about what license type which I
>> wouldn't know would be acceptable under the terms which I couldn't
>> negotiate. I think you get my drift :-)
>>
>> I don't hope that a bunch of constant defines would tickle his toes
>> much. I could persuade you I got them from pure white room reverse
>> engineering and I give them to you as a gift :-)?
>>
>> Ruben
>>
>
> As a backup, the ACE library also has lots of these definitions, maybe
> even better (a lot less magic numbers) and they only need the
> copyright notice reproduced, which could be in comments above the
> #define's?
>
> Ruben
>

My apologies for the increased amount of spam about this, but I just
noticed mingw-w64 provides these definitions under Public Domain (ie
no copyright assigned). You can find it here:

http://mingw-w64.svn.sourceforge.net/viewvc/mingw-w64/trunk/mingw-w64-headers/include/psdk_inc/_wsa_errnos.h?revision=3546&view=markup

Would this be a more troublefree and acceptable source? I can ask the
mingw-w64 devs if PD conflicts with libc++ licensing, I'm sure they'll
be more than happy to help my effort.

Ruben