On Thu, Apr 28, 2011 at 6:36 AM, Sisyphus wrote:
>>
>> All win64-targeting toolchains created after 2010-04-28, including
>> the sezero's gcc-4.4-based personal builds follow the MS convention.
>
> Just a quick follow-up question on that.
>
> Is there a simple way for a program to determine the da
- Original Message -
From: "Ozkan Sezer"
> Win64-targeting builds from mingw-w64 up to 2010-04-27 didn't
> follow MSVC x64 convention and did *not* prepend an undersocore
> to the symbols: this is why you are seeing the incompatibilities
> with the newer toolchains.
>
> All win64-targe
On 4/28/2011 03:26, Jon wrote:
>>> Is LIBRARY_PATH ignored in my case because i686-w64-mingw32-gcc.exe thinks
>>> it's cross-compiling between i686-w64-mingw32 and i686-pc-mingw32? My
>>> understanding is LIBRARY_PATH is ignored when cross-compiling but not other
>>> cases, and I want to make s
It's a new problem after 4.7-20110416.
-Original Message-
From: Simon de Graaf [mailto:s.degr...@tudelft.nl]
Sent: Wednesday, April 27, 2011 11:31 AM
To: mingw-w64-public@lists.sourceforge.net
Subject: Re: [Mingw-w64-public] printf %f format does not work to print
doubles/floats
Yes, i
> > Is LIBRARY_PATH ignored in my case because i686-w64-mingw32-gcc.exe thinks
> > it's cross-compiling between i686-w64-mingw32 and i686-pc-mingw32? My
> > understanding is LIBRARY_PATH is ignored when cross-compiling but not other
> > cases, and I want to make sure I get this issue before mov
Vincent Torri wrote:
> Hey
>
> I already mentioned that problem on IRC some months ago, but it seems
> that it has not been fixed. I downloaded the automated build
>
> http://freefr.dl.sourceforge.net/project/mingw-w64/Toolchains%20targetting%20Win64/Automated%20Builds/mingw-w64-bin_i686-linux_2011
On Wed, Apr 27, 2011 at 6:30 PM, Simon de Graaf wrote:
> Yes, i have the same output (tested on XP Prof. 64 bit).
> I also verified my old 64 bit cross-compiler tree
> and it has the same problem
> ( archive: mingw-w64-bin_i686-linux_20100224.tar.bz2 ).
Well, I was ready to accept problems from
Yes, i have the same output (tested on XP Prof. 64 bit).
I also verified my old 64 bit cross-compiler tree
and it has the same problem
( archive: mingw-w64-bin_i686-linux_20100224.tar.bz2 ).
Thanks for your help and quick response.
On 27/04/11 17:17, Ozkan Sezer wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 27, 2011 at 5
On Wed, Apr 27, 2011 at 5:42 PM, Simon de Graaf wrote:
> Automatic build:
>
> mingw-w64-bin_i686-linux_20110423.tar.bz2
>
> Program code:
>
> #include
>
> int main ()
> {
> long double d = 16.125e-08;
> double e = 8.125e-08;
>
> printf ("ge=%g (f)\n", (float)e);
> printf ("ge=
Automatic build:
mingw-w64-bin_i686-linux_20110423.tar.bz2
Program code:
#include
int main ()
{
long double d = 16.125e-08;
double e = 8.125e-08;
printf ("ge=%g (f)\n", (float)e);
printf ("ge=%g\n", e);
printf ("fe=%f (f)\n", (float)e);
printf ("fe=%f\n", e)
On Wed, Apr 27, 2011 at 5:27 PM, Simon de Graaf wrote:
> Hi,
Hi: we might need a little bit more detail,
>
> I downloaded the latest cross-compiler and found out
Precisely which one?
> that the printf %f format does not work to print doubles/floats.
> It gives back a zero value.
>
Can you pl
Hi,
I downloaded the latest cross-compiler and found out
that the printf %f format does not work to print doubles/floats.
It gives back a zero value.
Regards
Simon de Graaf
--
WhatsUp Gold - Download Free Network Managem
On Wednesday 27 April 2011 09:51:32 Jason wrote:
> On Wednesday 27 April 2011 07:26:18 Sisyphus wrote:
> > - Original Message -
> > From: "jason"
> >
> > >> What's the date on those compilers ? If they're more recent than my
> > >> 20100414
> > >> and 20100306 I'll see if I can grab one or
13 matches
Mail list logo
