On 10/30/2011 21:12, Prof Brian Ripley wrote:
> It seems this version has e.g. cc1.exe built against libstdc++6.dll.
> Why does a C-code compiler front-end need C++ support? (The 4.6.2
> version did not, nor does any cc1 I have ever seen.)
>
PPL is still required for graphite afaik, its C++, but
Op 30 okt. 2011 14:12 schreef "Prof Brian Ripley"
het volgende:
>
> It seems this version has e.g. cc1.exe built against libstdc++6.dll.
> Why does a C-code compiler front-end need C++ support? (The 4.6.2
version did not, nor does any cc1 I have ever seen.)
>
> The issue is that you can normally
It seems this version has e.g. cc1.exe built against libstdc++6.dll.
Why does a C-code compiler front-end need C++ support? (The 4.6.2
version did not, nor does any cc1 I have ever seen.)
The issue is that you can normally run the 32-bit compiler as
/path/to/mingw32/bin/gcc
and the 64-bit on
On 10/30/2011 20:13, Kai Tietz wrote:
> 2011/10/30 JonY :
>> On 10/30/2011 19:07, Kai Tietz wrote:
IIRC there is no foolproof way to deal with this issue, libmsvcr100.a
only has the __lc_codepage_func version, no __lc_codepage, so that goes
both ways if you want to link to msvcr
2011/10/30 JonY :
> On 10/30/2011 19:07, Kai Tietz wrote:
>>>
>>> IIRC there is no foolproof way to deal with this issue, libmsvcr100.a
>>> only has the __lc_codepage_func version, no __lc_codepage, so that goes
>>> both ways if you want to link to msvcrXX instead of msvcrt.
>>>
>>> Anybody know if
On 10/30/2011 19:07, Kai Tietz wrote:
>>
>> IIRC there is no foolproof way to deal with this issue, libmsvcr100.a
>> only has the __lc_codepage_func version, no __lc_codepage, so that goes
>> both ways if you want to link to msvcrXX instead of msvcrt.
>>
>> Anybody know if GetProcAddress works on d
2011/10/30 JonY :
> On 10/30/2011 18:46, Ozkan Sezer wrote:
>> On Sun, Oct 30, 2011 at 12:40 PM, Ruben Van Boxem
>> wrote:
>> [...]
> - the change around 20110827 for 9x/me/2000 compatibility, such as
>
> https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?func=detail&aid=3300841&group_id=202880&atid=983
On 10/30/2011 18:46, Ozkan Sezer wrote:
> On Sun, Oct 30, 2011 at 12:40 PM, Ruben Van Boxem
> wrote:
> [...]
- the change around 20110827 for 9x/me/2000 compatibility, such as
https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?func=detail&aid=3300841&group_id=202880&atid=983354
curious if this i
On Sun, Oct 30, 2011 at 12:40 PM, Ruben Van Boxem
wrote:
[...]
>> > - the change around 20110827 for 9x/me/2000 compatibility, such as
>> >
>> > https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?func=detail&aid=3300841&group_id=202880&atid=983354
>> > curious if this is a compiler I can use to build windows 9x app
2011/10/30 Ozkan Sezer
> On Sun, Oct 30, 2011 at 10:20 AM, Jim Michaels wrote:
> > does 20111005 have
> > - c++11 (c++0x)? I noticed the lack of a libstdc++-6.dll, so I was just
> > wondering... I use c++11's initializer lists and the equivalent of a
> > foreach statement.
>
> Since 20111005 i
On Sun, Oct 30, 2011 at 10:20 AM, Jim Michaels wrote:
> does 20111005 have
> - c++11 (c++0x)? I noticed the lack of a libstdc++-6.dll, so I was just
> wondering... I use c++11's initializer lists and the equivalent of a
> foreach statement.
Since 20111005 is gcc-4.4-based it has some c++0x
stuf
does 20111005 have
- c++11 (c++0x)? I noticed the lack of a libstdc++-6.dll, so I was just
wondering... I use c++11's initializer lists and the equivalent of a foreach
statement.
- the change around 20110827 for 9x/me/2000 compatibility, such as
https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?func=detail&ai
12 matches
Mail list logo
