This patch has nothing to do with boost, and makes no changes to inline
asm. Just some simple header changes.
This patch:
- Allows winbase.h to use inline intrinsics whether winnt.h is also
included or not.
- Brings x86 versions of InterlockedAnd64 et al into alignment with MS.
- Adds the #i
On 7/22/2013 06:19, JonY wrote:
> On 7/22/2013 03:46, niXman wrote:
>> 2013/7/21 Kai Tietz:
>>> Hi
>>>
>>> as far as I remember we discussed that we shouldn't touch first hand old
>>> structure. First building up new tree and then move *unnecessary* parts
>>> away, or/and at least announce changes
On 7/22/2013 03:46, niXman wrote:
> 2013/7/21 Kai Tietz:
>> Hi
>>
>> as far as I remember we discussed that we shouldn't touch first hand old
>> structure. First building up new tree and then move *unnecessary* parts
>> away, or/and at least announce changes in front with community to avoid such
>
> 2013/7/21 Kai Tietz:
> > Hi
> >
> > as far as I remember we discussed that we shouldn't touch first hand old
> > structure. First building up new tree and then move *unnecessary* parts
> > away, or/and at least announce changes in front with community to avoid such
> > fallouts. It is worse to
> Attached is the patch I came up with to fix the build issue.
You are checking for defined(__MINGW64_VERSION_MAJOR). Would it make
sense to do (__MINGW64_VERSION_MAJOR >= 3)?
dw
--
See everything from the browser to t
2013/7/21 Kai Tietz:
> Hi
>
> as far as I remember we discussed that we shouldn't touch first hand old
> structure. First building up new tree and then move *unnecessary* parts
> away, or/and at least announce changes in front with community to avoid such
> fallouts. It is worse to have some chan
Hi
as far as I remember we discussed that we shouldn't touch first hand old
structure. First building up new tree and then move *unnecessary* parts
away, or/and at least announce changes in front with community to avoid
such fallouts. It is worse to have some changes/temporary fallouts.
Neverthe
2013/7/21 JonY:
> Please revert the move now, move things back, it is breaking a lot of
> old links. I don't mind the merge but please do not break things because
> of new developments.
>
> What is wrong with the old structure? You can put your builds under
> "Toolchains targetting Win64/Official
On Sun, Jul 21, 2013, JonY wrote:
> On 7/21/2013 02:00, niXman wrote:
> > After the discussion of the details, it was decided to merge the
> > MinGW-builds and MinGW-w64 projects.
> > Since then, the MinGW-builds project and all its achievements, are
> > moving into the MinGW-w64 project and, thus,
e following build tests:
using an old mingw-w64 snapshot (20121016): success!
using a recent mingw-w64 snapshot (20130713, r5949): success!
using a bleeding edge mingw-w64 snapshot (20130721, r5969): success!
The qpid-cpp build failure is also resolved with this patch as well.
Unless somebody obj
Erik van Pienbroek schreef op zo 21-07-2013 om 12:22 [+0200]:
> dw schreef op za 20-07-2013 om 23:48 [-0700]:
> > So, who decides? If it's me, I'm probably going to wimp out and add the
> > defs back to avoid the conflict.
>
> I've just forwarded all our information to the Fedora maintainer of t
dw schreef op za 20-07-2013 om 23:48 [-0700]:
> So, who decides? If it's me, I'm probably going to wimp out and add the
> defs back to avoid the conflict.
I've just forwarded all our information to the Fedora maintainer of the
mingw-boost package - Thomas Sailer - and asked him if he could provi
12 matches
Mail list logo
