-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Paul Eggert wrote:
> "Mark D. Baushke" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
>
>>but 'long long' is NOT available.
>
>
> That's weird, since it's been part of the C standard for 7 years. Are
> the Microsoft Windows C compilers that far behind the times?
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Paul Eggert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> I'm getting a bit lost with info about both versus
> , but does the following patch fix the problem?
This does not fix the problem as the
AC_CACHE_VAL(gl_cvs_header_stdint_h) is interfering with the test due
"Mark D. Baushke" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> but 'long long' is NOT available.
That's weird, since it's been part of the C standard for 7 years. Are
the Microsoft Windows C compilers that far behind the times? Or
perhaps they just need to set some compiler switch to make 'long long'
availabl
[Sorry about sending a reverse patch the first time around...]
Hi Folks,
The CVS project found a need to add the following patch to
lib/strtoimax.c in order to get compilation on Windows to work.
The basic problem is that there is an __int64 type and three conversion
functions:
char * _i64toa(_
Hi Folks,
The CVS project found a need to add the following patch to
lib/strtoimax.c in order to get compilation on Windows to work.
The basic problem is that there is an __int64 type and three conversion
functions:
char * _i64toa(__int64, char *, int);
char * _ui64toa(unsigned __int64, char *,
I'm getting a bit lost with info about both versus
, but does the following patch fix the problem?
2006-06-12 Paul Eggert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
* m4/stdint.m4 (gl_STDINT_H): Reject if it
doesn't declare intmax_t. Problem reported by
Larry Jones and Derek Price in
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Paul Eggert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> "Derek R. Price" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > The current test that checks for the existence of isn't
> > sufficient on SGI when using the compiler in (its default?) C89 mode,
> > because the SGI compil
"Derek R. Price" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> The current test that checks for the existence of isn't
> sufficient on SGI when using the compiler in (its default?) C89 mode,
> because the SGI compiler doesn't have fatal #error directives:
If you ignore the warning, does anything break? If not,
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Hi all,
The current test that checks for the existence of isn't
sufficient on SGI when using the compiler in (its default?) C89 mode,
because the SGI compiler doesn't have fatal #error directives:
Larry Jones wrote:
> Well, it appears that it is com
