Re: wine/ tools/winewrap.c tools/winegcc.c include ...

[Alexandre Julliard]

"Dimitrie O. Paun"  writes:
> However, if we are to depend on winegcc/winewrap, we need to be able
> to compile it anyway, no? And since it has a well defined semantics 
> (that's much more commonly available than the fork/exec), it's not 
> necessarily a bad addition.

Yes, it's just that I don't like to add non-Unix APIs to the
portability layer, but I guess there are good reasons for making
an exception here.