> Am 05.09.2013 23:10 schrieb "Incongruous" :
>>
>> #ifndef __cpluplus
>>std::cout << "error\n A C++ compiler is required!" << std::endl;
>>return -1;
>> #endif
>> The above snip says, if __cplusplus has not been defined print “bla bla”
>> and return –1. Which means that if I am using __cp
As you check for "__cpluplus" - which is obviously not defined by compiler
by default - I would assume you are using c++ :
;-)
Am 05.09.2013 23:10 schrieb "Incongruous" :
> #ifndef __cpluplus
>std::cout << "error\n A C++ compiler is required!" << std::endl;
>return -1;
> #endif
> The ab
First:
Thank you guys for MinGW-w64! I love it! I've used it some time ago
"natively" and it was perfect.
But having sad that, the actual question/problems :-)
I've already asked that on stackoverflow, but this place is definitely
better:
This time I need a cross-compiler so I've built a tool-cha
#ifndef __cpluplus
std::cout << "error\n A C++ compiler is required!" << std::endl;
return -1;
#endif
The above snip says, if __cplusplus has not been defined print “bla bla” and
return –1. Which means that if I am using __cplusplus it should NOT print
anthing, right? So, am I using the C
2013/9/5 Ray Donnelly:
> For most projects that use it, mingw-w64 is grabbed from svn and the
> releases are largely ignored.
>
> Whether that's a good thing or not is another matter of course.
This situation will be corrected. We(I and Alexey) will building using
mingw-w64 releases, just the name
For most projects that use it, mingw-w64 is grabbed from svn and the
releases are largely ignored.
Whether that's a good thing or not is another matter of course.
On Thu, Sep 5, 2013 at 3:17 PM, Roger Pack wrote:
> On 9/5/13, Adrien Nader wrote:
>> On Wed, Sep 04, 2013, Roger Pack wrote:
>>> He
On 9/5/13, Adrien Nader wrote:
> On Wed, Sep 04, 2013, Roger Pack wrote:
>> Hello.
>> Despite my not understanding it, for some reason with 2.0.8 I'm unable
>> to build gcc 4.8.0, I get this output:
>>
>> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55706
>>
>> however, that "should" have been fixe
On Wed, Sep 04, 2013, Roger Pack wrote:
> Hello.
> Despite my not understanding it, for some reason with 2.0.8 I'm unable
> to build gcc 4.8.0, I get this output:
>
> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55706
>
> however, that "should" have been fixed in r4357, which "should" have
> been
