Re: GCC-4.7.2-2: Go/No-go?

On Thu, Apr 11, 2013 at 2:19 AM, Corinna Vinschen wrote: > On Apr 11 13:14, Dave Korn wrote: >> On 11/04/2013 11:13, Corinna Vinschen wrote: >> > On Apr 11 01:58, Yaakov (Cygwin/X) wrote: >> >> On 2013-04-11 01:02, Dave Korn wrote: >> >>> Yep, sure. *sigh*, I'm sure we'll suddenly find out that

Re: 64 bit: "noarch" packages and going beta

On Wed, Apr 10, 2013 at 3:16 AM, Corinna Vinschen wrote: > Greetings venerable maintainers, > > > I have two questions: > > - Does anybody know of a simple way to find out which packages in the 32 > bit distro are actually "noarch' packages? The reason I'm asking is > that I'm looking for a si

Re: GCC 4.7 and dependencies

On Tue, Apr 2, 2013 at 12:23 PM, Achim Gratz wrote: > Yaakov (Cygwin/X) writes: >> http://cygwin-ports.git.sourceforge.net/git/gitweb.cgi?p=cygwin-ports/ppl >> http://cygwin-ports.git.sourceforge.net/git/gitweb.cgi?p=cygwin-ports/cloog-ppl > > I'm looking at ppl right now. Is there any reason not

Re: building 64 bit packages

On Thu, Mar 28, 2013 at 9:36 AM, Corinna Vinschen wrote: > Hi guys, Hi! > Obviously I can't force you to switch to cygport. Why not? Honestly, can't you just make it a cygwin policy? > We're still mulling over setting up a build machine. If we have that, > and if you create your packages via

Re: 64bit: cygstdc++-6.dll

On Sat, Mar 23, 2013 at 5:50 AM, Corinna Vinschen wrote: > On Mar 22 19:11, marco atzeri wrote: >> latest libstdc++6-4.8-20130319-1 >> >> has at least a missing entry point from previous dll >> >> cmake fails with >> "_ZTVN10_cxxabiv117_class_type_infoE could not be located" > > Yaakov built this

Re: Maintainers please weigh in on 64-bit Cygwin

On Sun, Mar 17, 2013 at 12:01 PM, Cary R. wrote: > > From: NightStrike > Sent: Sunday, March 17, 2013 1:36 PM > Subject: Re: Maintainers please weigh in on 64-bit Cygwin > > On Sun, Mar 17, 2013 at 2:36 PM, Chris Sutcliffe wrote: >>

Re: Maintainers please weigh in on 64-bit Cygwin

On Sun, Mar 17, 2013 at 2:36 PM, Chris Sutcliffe wrote: > On 17 March 2013 13:45, Christopher Faylor wrote: >> You certainly could but that would mean that you'd be releasing untested >> software for 64-bit. Is that something that we want to endorse or should >> we have some way of validating thi

Re: GCC maintainer volunteer?

On Thu, Feb 28, 2013 at 12:04 AM, Yaakov wrote: > On Wed, 27 Feb 2013 14:59:20 +0100, Corinna Vinschen wrote: >> On Feb 27 21:29, JonY wrote: >> > I'm worried that I might break gcc installs if I overlooked something >> > obvious. >> > >> > The upload will be overwriting the .hint files, java and

Re: GCC maintainer volunteer?

On Thu, Feb 21, 2013 at 3:42 AM, Corinna Vinschen wrote: > On Feb 21 21:33, JonY wrote: >> On 2/21/2013 20:40, NightStrike wrote: >> >> I've started looking at the patches, they definitely aren't trivial. >> >> I'll probably be releasing it as experi

Re: GCC maintainer volunteer? (was Re: Changing dependent library version numbers vs. test packages vs. requires: lines.)

On Thu, Feb 21, 2013 at 1:53 AM, JonY <10wa...@gmail.com> wrote: > On 2/19/2013 20:53, JonY wrote: >> On 2/19/2013 19:46, Yaakov (Cygwin/X) wrote: >>> On Tue, 19 Feb 2013 18:21:56 +0800, JonY wrote: I can give Cygwin GCC a try over the weekends. Not sure if it is too complicated. >>>

Re: [RFU] mingw64-* crt and headers update, including win32api

On Wed, Nov 14, 2012 at 2:08 AM, Yaakov (Cygwin/X) > > Also, SF.net's FRS is notorious for serving up the wrong file when more > than one file the same name in different directories (e.g. setup.hint). That has long since been fixed. > You may wish to find another location for temporary posting of

Re: [ITA] w32api-3.0b_svn5368-1

On Thu, Aug 30, 2012 at 4:56 AM, Jon TURNEY wrote: WFM. Once your _PROTECT_BOOL_MACRO patch for windef.h is accepted, I can roll an xproto update and this will be GTG. >>> >>> >>> No problems with ddraw.h status? > > > There's probably some decruftification which can take place later in

Re: [ITA] w32api-3.0b_svn5368-1

On Tue, Aug 21, 2012 at 7:34 AM, JonY wrote: > Here's the part from mingw-w64 windef.h: > > #ifndef _DEF_WINBOOL_ > #define _DEF_WINBOOL_ > typedef int WINBOOL; > #pragma push_macro("BOOL") > #undef BOOL > #if !defined(__OBJC__) && !defined(__OBJC_BOOL) && > !defined(__objc_INCLUDE_GNU) > typedef

Re: gcc4: next release

On Thu, Jul 8, 2010 at 12:08 PM, Dave Korn wrote: >> GCC 4.5.x branch and the 4.6.x branch ABI changed for win64, I'm trying >> to avoid breaking user's self-built packages, so 4.5.0 and earlier is >> out of the question. The current 4.3.4 is too old for mingw-w64. > >  Going with 4.5.1 seems the

Re: gcc4: next release (Dave Korn we need you)

On Thu, Jul 8, 2010 at 8:25 AM, Charles Wilson wrote: > Well, the 64bit build of w32api provides over 2000 import libraries. The > 32bit build has only about 225.  Apparently this is because the .def > files that each are generated from are maintained separately, vetted on > each system, and their

Re: gcc4: next release (Dave Korn we need you)

On Wed, Jul 7, 2010 at 6:12 PM, Charles Wilson wrote: > On 7/7/2010 5:03 PM, Christopher Faylor wrote: >> >> On Wed, Jul 07, 2010 at 09:44:14PM +0100, Andy Koppe wrote: >>> >>> On 7 July 2010 18:27, NightStrike wrote: >>>> >>>> How&#x

Re: gcc4: next release (Dave Korn we need you)

On Wed, Jul 7, 2010 at 12:53 PM, Christopher Faylor wrote: > On Wed, Jul 07, 2010 at 11:16:54AM -0500, Yaakov (Cygwin/X) wrote: >>On Wed, 2010-07-07 at 11:33 -0400, Christopher Faylor wrote: >>> >Here's my question, though: given the incompatibilities mentioned, would >>> >a cygwin1.dll built with

Re: [ITP] mingw-w64

On Sun, Jul 4, 2010 at 12:26 AM, Andy Koppe wrote: >> PERHAPS it makes the most sense to provide two single-target compilers >> (but most of the interop issues would remain; the only simplification >> would be the elimination of any packages that are explicitly >> "mingw64-{tc64}-m32-foo" or "ming

Re: [ITP] mingw-w64

On Fri, Jul 2, 2010 at 1:41 PM, Andy Koppe wrote: > Is mingw64 already part of a major Linux distribution? Otherwise it > needs five votes from Cygwin maintainers. Ubuntu, Debian, and Fedora. > Also, are you sure that gcc-4.6 is sufficiently stable for release, > i.e. that there won't be any mor

Re: [ITP] mingw-w64

On Wed, Jun 30, 2010 at 3:34 PM, Charles Wilson wrote: > On 6/30/2010 2:53 PM, NightStrike wrote: >> >> On Wed, Jun 30, 2010 at 12:36 PM, Charles Wilson wrote: >>> >>> Hmm. So, big picture, we have possibly three different mingw-ish >>> compilers, >&

Re: [ITP] mingw-w64

On Wed, Jun 30, 2010 at 12:36 PM, Charles Wilson wrote: > Hmm. So, big picture, we have possibly three different mingw-ish compilers, > and you're currently attempting to shepherd the first one, while being > mindful of future issues related to simultaneous installation of both of the > first two:

Re: [ITP] mingw-w64

On Mon, Jun 28, 2010 at 11:27 PM, JonY wrote: > Sourceforge doesn't have an FTP, it makes things a bit hard, I'll try to get > an FTP server soon. Basically, its everything under: > Is FTP specifically required? Or can t

Re: [ITP] mingw-w64

On Sat, Jun 26, 2010 at 7:59 AM, JonY wrote: > mingw-w64 gcc-rt (runtime): > >

Re: Need input on packaging mingw-w64 for Cygwin

On Sun, Jan 24, 2010 at 2:03 AM, Christopher Faylor wrote: > So, follow-on question:  Can we have one toolchain which targets both > 32-bit and 64-bit?  It is certainly possible to do that on linux with > a -m32 and -m64 option.  Is it possible to do this with mingw? It's possible to do that with