On Tue, Apr 10, 2012 at 4:00 PM, NightStrike wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 10, 2012 at 9:56 AM, Richard Guenther
> wrote:
>> On Tue, Apr 10, 2012 at 3:25 PM, NightStrike wrote:
>>> On Tue, Apr 10, 2012 at 8:38 AM, Jonathan Wakely
>>> wrote:
On 10 April 2012 13:11, NightStrike wrote:
> Generall
On Tue, Apr 10, 2012 at 9:56 AM, Richard Guenther
wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 10, 2012 at 3:25 PM, NightStrike wrote:
>> On Tue, Apr 10, 2012 at 8:38 AM, Jonathan Wakely
>> wrote:
>>> On 10 April 2012 13:11, NightStrike wrote:
Generally speaking, I've tried to help people get us a clean build of
On Tue, Apr 10, 2012 at 3:25 PM, NightStrike wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 10, 2012 at 8:38 AM, Jonathan Wakely
> wrote:
>> On 10 April 2012 13:11, NightStrike wrote:
>>> Generally speaking, I've tried to help people get us a clean build of
>>> gcc warning-wise for the windows targets. This has historic
On Tue, Apr 10, 2012 at 8:38 AM, Jonathan Wakely wrote:
> On 10 April 2012 13:11, NightStrike wrote:
>> Generally speaking, I've tried to help people get us a clean build of
>> gcc warning-wise for the windows targets. This has historically been
>> challenging mainly due to printf. Kai added a l
On 10 April 2012 13:11, NightStrike wrote:
> Generally speaking, I've tried to help people get us a clean build of
> gcc warning-wise for the windows targets. This has historically been
> challenging mainly due to printf. Kai added a lot of support for
> handling whacky windows printfs, and we we
