On Tue, Mar 23, 2010 at 8:48 AM, Ozkan Sezer wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 23, 2010 at 2:43 PM, Kai Tietz wrote:
>>
>> It is the use of USER, right? This is fine at the moment, but I
>
> Yes, the USER_H mechanism.
>
>> dislike it as we then have to maintain changes of gcc within our
>> headers. What's abo
On Tue, Mar 23, 2010 at 9:02 AM, Ozkan Sezer wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 23, 2010 at 3:00 PM, NightStrike wrote:
>> On Tue, Mar 23, 2010 at 8:48 AM, Ozkan Sezer wrote:
>>> I can't understand, how can a fixinclude fix this thing??
>>
>> As I understand it, our headers are already being fixincluded. It's
On Tue, Mar 23, 2010 at 9:00 AM, NightStrike wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 23, 2010 at 8:48 AM, Ozkan Sezer wrote:
>> I can't understand, how can a fixinclude fix this thing??
>
> As I understand it, our headers are already being fixincluded. It's
> fixincludes that causes GCC to override us. That means
On Tue, Mar 23, 2010 at 3:00 PM, NightStrike wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 23, 2010 at 8:48 AM, Ozkan Sezer wrote:
>> I can't understand, how can a fixinclude fix this thing??
>
> As I understand it, our headers are already being fixincluded. It's
> fixincludes that causes GCC to override us. That means
On Tue, Mar 23, 2010 at 8:48 AM, Ozkan Sezer wrote:
> I can't understand, how can a fixinclude fix this thing??
As I understand it, our headers are already being fixincluded. It's
fixincludes that causes GCC to override us. That means that there's
stuff in our headers that GCC doesn't like.
---
On Tue, Mar 23, 2010 at 2:52 PM, Kai Tietz wrote:
> 2010/3/23 Ozkan Sezer :
>> On Tue, Mar 23, 2010 at 2:43 PM, Kai Tietz wrote:
>>> 2010/3/23 Ozkan Sezer :
On Tue, Mar 23, 2010 at 2:17 PM, NightStrike wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 23, 2010 at 8:15 AM, Kai Tietz
> wrote:
>> 2010/3/23 N
2010/3/23 Ozkan Sezer :
> On Tue, Mar 23, 2010 at 2:43 PM, Kai Tietz wrote:
>> 2010/3/23 Ozkan Sezer :
>>> On Tue, Mar 23, 2010 at 2:17 PM, NightStrike wrote:
On Tue, Mar 23, 2010 at 8:15 AM, Kai Tietz wrote:
> 2010/3/23 NightStrike :
>> On Tue, Mar 23, 2010 at 12:57 AM, Mook
>>
On Tue, Mar 23, 2010 at 2:43 PM, Kai Tietz wrote:
> 2010/3/23 Ozkan Sezer :
>> On Tue, Mar 23, 2010 at 2:17 PM, NightStrike wrote:
>>> On Tue, Mar 23, 2010 at 8:15 AM, Kai Tietz wrote:
2010/3/23 NightStrike :
> On Tue, Mar 23, 2010 at 12:57 AM, Mook
> wrote:
>> On Sun, Mar 21,
2010/3/23 NightStrike :
> On Tue, Mar 23, 2010 at 12:57 AM, Mook
> wrote:
>> On Sun, Mar 21, 2010 at 4:22 PM, NightStrike wrote:
>>> On Sun, Mar 21, 2010 at 5:20 PM, Ozkan Sezer wrote:
For some reason yet unknown to me, the gcc-provided headers
have priority over the system provided he
2010/3/23 Ozkan Sezer :
> On Tue, Mar 23, 2010 at 2:17 PM, NightStrike wrote:
>> On Tue, Mar 23, 2010 at 8:15 AM, Kai Tietz wrote:
>>> 2010/3/23 NightStrike :
On Tue, Mar 23, 2010 at 12:57 AM, Mook
wrote:
> On Sun, Mar 21, 2010 at 4:22 PM, NightStrike
> wrote:
>> On Sun,
On Tue, Mar 23, 2010 at 2:17 PM, NightStrike wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 23, 2010 at 8:15 AM, Kai Tietz wrote:
>> 2010/3/23 NightStrike :
>>> On Tue, Mar 23, 2010 at 12:57 AM, Mook
>>> wrote:
On Sun, Mar 21, 2010 at 4:22 PM, NightStrike wrote:
> On Sun, Mar 21, 2010 at 5:20 PM, Ozkan Sezer w
On Tue, Mar 23, 2010 at 8:15 AM, Kai Tietz wrote:
> 2010/3/23 NightStrike :
>> On Tue, Mar 23, 2010 at 12:57 AM, Mook
>> wrote:
>>> On Sun, Mar 21, 2010 at 4:22 PM, NightStrike wrote:
On Sun, Mar 21, 2010 at 5:20 PM, Ozkan Sezer wrote:
> For some reason yet unknown to me, the gcc-provi
On Tue, Mar 23, 2010 at 12:57 AM, Mook
wrote:
> On Sun, Mar 21, 2010 at 4:22 PM, NightStrike wrote:
>> On Sun, Mar 21, 2010 at 5:20 PM, Ozkan Sezer wrote:
>>> For some reason yet unknown to me, the gcc-provided headers
>>> have priority over the system provided headers and float.h is
>>> especia
Hello Brian,
2010/3/23 Prof Brian Ripley :
> The R project (http://www.r-project.org) has been building under
> MinGW-w64 since mid-January. We have ca 2500 extension packages, ca
> 800 of which contain DLLs in C/C++/Fortran/more-than-one-of-those.
>
> In those couple of months the snapshots (at l
The R project (http://www.r-project.org) has been building under
MinGW-w64 since mid-January. We have ca 2500 extension packages, ca
800 of which contain DLLs in C/C++/Fortran/more-than-one-of-those.
In those couple of months the snapshots (at least the i686-mingw ones)
have gone from dynamic l
15 matches
Mail list logo