2013/9/16 Jacek Caban :
> On 09/16/13 22:08, Ozkan Sezer wrote:
>> On 9/16/13, Jacek Caban wrote:
>>> On 09/16/13 21:26, Erik van Pienbroek wrote:
Any ideas on whether this should be fixed in mingw-w64?
>>> AFAICS it's not present in PSDK. It contains only
>>> EXCEPTION_REGISTRATION_RECORD, n
On 09/16/13 21:26, Erik van Pienbroek wrote:
> Any ideas on whether this should be fixed in mingw-w64?
AFAICS it's not present in PSDK. It contains only
EXCEPTION_REGISTRATION_RECORD, no EXCEPTION_REGISTRATION. It was added
by Kai in patch:
http://repo.or.cz/w/mingw-w64/jacek.git/commitdiff/a0b651
On 09/16/13 22:08, Ozkan Sezer wrote:
> On 9/16/13, Jacek Caban wrote:
>> On 09/16/13 21:26, Erik van Pienbroek wrote:
>>> Any ideas on whether this should be fixed in mingw-w64?
>> AFAICS it's not present in PSDK. It contains only
>> EXCEPTION_REGISTRATION_RECORD, no EXCEPTION_REGISTRATION. It wa
Hey all,
The test mass rebuild against r6284 has shown that tcl currently still
fails to build:
i686-w64-mingw32-gcc -c -O2 -g -pipe -Wall -Wp,-D_FORTIFY_SOURCE=2
-fexceptions --param=ssp-buffer-size=4 -O2 -fomit-frame-pointer -Wall
-I"../../generic" -DTCL_TOMMATH -DMP_PREC=4 -I"../../libtommath"
On 9/16/13, Jacek Caban wrote:
> On 09/16/13 21:26, Erik van Pienbroek wrote:
>> Any ideas on whether this should be fixed in mingw-w64?
>
> AFAICS it's not present in PSDK. It contains only
> EXCEPTION_REGISTRATION_RECORD, no EXCEPTION_REGISTRATION. It was added
> by Kai in patch:
> http://repo.o
On 09/14/13 08:03, Kai Tietz wrote:
> 2013/9/14 JonY :
>> On 9/14/2013 02:45, Ozkan Sezer wrote:
>>> On 9/13/13, Kai Tietz wrote:
Well, I consider, if we might want to define _FORCENAMELESSUNION in
_mingw.h for 3.0, and remove it on our trunk. By this we reduce
fallout right now, pr
On 9/16/2013 21:09, Suresh Govindachar wrote:
>
> But I am puzzled by the following in the last quoted para above: "trunk
> is where all development work will take place, unless the code in
> question is known to be broken work-in-progress code" -- if the trunk is
> where all the development wo
On 9/16/2013 4:38 AM, JonY wrote:
> On 9/16/2013 19:17, Earnie Boyd wrote:
>> IMO, trunk is a stable branch that all other branches evolve from.
>> You create a working branch named for the next release that all work
>> is done to and is unstable up until the call for testing. After the
>> call fo
On 9/16/2013 19:17, Earnie Boyd wrote:
>
> IMO, trunk is a stable branch that all other branches evolve from.
> You create a working branch named for the next release that all work
> is done to and is unstable up until the call for testing. After the
> call for testing only bug fixes for that rel
On Mon, Sep 16, 2013 at 3:53 AM, niXman wrote:
> 2013/9/14 Jon:
>> On Sat, Sep 14, 2013 at 9:44 AM, Ruben Van Boxem
>>> I think you guys are missing the main problem: the fact that for the last
>>> half year, trunk was necessary to build the latest GCC version. I'm
>>> confident the whole trunk sta
2013/9/14 Jon:
> On Sat, Sep 14, 2013 at 9:44 AM, Ruben Van Boxem
>> I think you guys are missing the main problem: the fact that for the last
>> half year, trunk was necessary to build the latest GCC version. I'm
>> confident the whole trunk stability question will descend into only murmurs
>> if
11 matches
Mail list logo