2013/8/5 dw :
>
>> In general this patch looks fair. But there seems to be a bug here
>> about readcr(1|2|...) function and none-64-bit mode. The signature is
>> different for that and this seems not to be reflected in that patch.
>
> It's there, it just isn't as obvious as how it was done in
> i
> In general this patch looks fair. But there seems to be a bug here
> about readcr(1|2|...) function and none-64-bit mode. The signature is
> different for that and this seems not to be reflected in that patch.
It's there, it just isn't as obvious as how it was done in
intrincs\readcr*.c.
Lo
2013/8/5 dw :
>
>> As for LLP64 long isn't 64-bit wide, we need to override it.
>
> Except that we don't override it. As written, every 64bit compile turns
> _lrotr into a 64bit operation, regardless of the actual size of a long.
> And calling _lrotr with a 32bit value and having it do a 64bit rot
2013/8/4 dw :
> - Move intrinsics from conio.h to intrin-impl.h to be consistent with msdn.
> - Update related files in intrincs\*.c to share code with intrin-impl.h.
> - Updated the asm to support both att/intel.
> - Use macros to ensure consistent definitions.
>
> Note that most of these function
I have about this issue no hard opinion. I would welcome an more
easily and intuitive way to maintain this - and this block mode is
really bad for manual one. And indeed to use here 1.14 automake's
%reldir% sounds fine to me, too.
So I am open-minded to this change ... and I agree it has all
pot
> As for LLP64 long isn't 64-bit wide, we need to override it.
Except that we don't override it. As written, every 64bit compile turns
_lrotr into a 64bit operation, regardless of the actual size of a long.
And calling _lrotr with a 32bit value and having it do a 64bit rotate
does not yield
On Fri, Aug 2, 2013 at 2:59 PM, Derek Buitenhuis
wrote:
> As it stands right now, the grouping and wrapping of filenames
> in MinGW-w64's Makefiles makes tracking or viewing changes in
> version control very very hard, and makes it non-obvious what has
> changed.
>
> I propose that it move to a so
The patch looks good to me.
Thanks,
Jacek
On 8/3/13 9:18 PM, dw wrote:
> Jacek, while I have checked in this patch so that I could continue work,
> I would still be interested in any comments you might have on this.
>
> dw
>
> On 8/2/2013 12:12 AM, Kai Tietz wrote:
>> Jacek, do you have any objec
