[bug #27809] several win64 fixes

Follow-up Comment #12, bug #27809 (project make): > It is needed earlier, otherwise line #38 of make.h provides a > prototype for alloca because there is no alloca.h and AIX is > not defined. OK then the other #include should probably be removed. Thanks! __

[bug #27825] win64 fix for config.h.W32.template

Update of bug #27825 (project make): Status:None => Duplicate Open/Closed:Open => Closed ___ Follow-up Comment #3: Closed as duplicate.

[bug #27825] win64 fix for config.h.W32.template

Follow-up Comment #2, bug #27825 (project make): The suggested change is moved to a new patch in bug #27809. This particular entry can be closed. ___ Reply to this item at:

[bug #27809] several win64 fixes

in.c:1402: warning: initialization discards qualifiers from pointer target type To make the reviewers' lives easier, I am attaching a combined all-in-one patch, w64-all-20100705.diff. This obsoletes all the other patches attached here. In addition, it also covers the tiny patch sugggested in

[bug #27809] several win64 fixes

Follow-up Comment #10, bug #27809 (project make): > I've applied most of the second patch. The first patch is Thanks. > I did have one question about the first patch: you have a > change to make.h which adds an include of malloc.h, but > later in make.h that header is already included if WINDO

Re: [bug #27809] several win64 fixes

> From: "Paul D. Smith" > Date: Mon, 05 Jul 2010 18:32:15 + > > > Follow-up Comment #9, bug #27809 (project make): > > I've applied most of the second patch. The first patch is mostly in the w32 > area so maybe Eli is a better person to review it? I will try to do that over the next few d

[bug #27809] several win64 fixes

Follow-up Comment #9, bug #27809 (project make): I've applied most of the second patch. The first patch is mostly in the w32 area so maybe Eli is a better person to review it? I did have one question about the first patch: you have a change to make.h which adds an include of malloc.h, but later

Re: [bug #30340] dependency handling

> You might read: http://make.mad-scientist.net/autodep.html Paul: do you have any plans to integrate your pages into the manual ? What's currently there falls some way short of best practice; I have a more sweeping set of changes than Florian's, that I've put on hold until I've got time to look

Re: [bug #27809] several win64 fixes

> I'll think about it and check my ISO C 1989 standard (I can't remember > whether it supports %p) when I get back to work on Tuesday. ANSI C '89 does specify the %p formatter (taking a void*). > Finally, it seems that some of these changes are meant to avoid variable > names conflicting with fun

Re: [bug #27809] several win64 fixes

On Mon, Jul 5, 2010 at 1:35 PM, Edward Welbourne wrote: [snip] >> Finally, it seems that some of these changes are meant to avoid variable >> names conflicting with function names (open, etc.)  Is this really a warning >> that some compilers give? > > Even gcc has a flag for it: -Wshadow; I conjec

Re: [bug #30340] dependency handling

On Mon, 05 Jul 2010 13:10:28 +0200 Edward Welbourne wrote: > > You might read: http://make.mad-scientist.net/autodep.html Thanks for the link. I have read that a while ago actually, but it was nice finding it again. The point remains: There are better was than what's in the info manual to handle

[bug #27809] several win64 fixes

Follow-up Comment #8, bug #27809 (project make): On Mon, Jul 5, 2010 at 1:35 PM, Edward Welbourne wrote: [snip] >> Finally, it seems that some of these changes are meant to >> avoid variable names conflicting with function names (open, >> etc.) Is this really a warning that some compilers give?