Anything to reduce mingw fragmentation would be good for new users. For
example, see
http://stackoverflow.com/questions/24581842/mingw-w64-vs-tdm-gcc-vs-othes-minor-distros-e-g-mingw-distro-nuwen-net
2015-05-29 7:39 GMT+03:00 Prasanna V. Loganathar :
> Hi,
>
> I had been using the builds as a p
Hi,
I had been using the builds as a part of MSYS2 for a while now, and I
believe this is the most robust and easiest way to install mingw-w64. Also,
due to the inherent nature of the system, it also provides the most
up-to-date builds on par with the Linux builds.
The build I see on winbuilds
Read the error message and make your function never return. That is all.
Paste a testcase next time.
--
Best regards,
lh_mouse
2015-05-29
-
发件人："Hotmail \(ArbolOne\)"
发送日期：2015-05-29 10:46
Hi!
When using this the [[ noreturn ]] attribute like this: - void f [[
noreturn ]] (); - I get a warning that reads:
warning: 'noreturn' function does return
( http://www.stroustrup.com/C++11FAQ.html#attributes )
What can I do to remove this warning?
Thanks
---
Sorry, I did search my mail and I did waited for your response, I also
ping you few times, including this week.
And apart of your statements that this is a bad patch, you do not
address the actual problem of building crt using older toolchain in
order to upgrade the crt.
Your statements are not h
I did respond, and your patch brings things steps away from usable,
not closer. Check your email, I explained how to do what you are
trying to do. Your patch is a really bad patch. Sorry.
On Thu, May 28, 2015 at 9:53 AM, Alon Bar-Lev wrote:
> Quoting my-self:
>
>>
>> Hi,
>>
>> I do not have a re
On 28 May 2015 at 18:22, Martin Sebor wrote:
> [*] The Feature Testing Recommendations For C++ proposal (N4440
> being the latest I could find) tries to alleviate it by providing
> test macros for individual features. I know Clang implements parts
> of it but don't know what its status is in GCC.
>
On Thu, May 28, 2015 at 6:51 PM, Jacek Caban wrote:
> On 05/28/15 17:29, İsmail Dönmez wrote:
>> On Thu, May 28, 2015 at 4:49 PM, Jacek Caban wrote:
>>> On 05/28/15 11:06, İsmail Dönmez wrote:
On Mon, May 25, 2015 at 7:47 PM, İsmail Dönmez wrote:
> Hi,
> .
> Noticed while tryin
I googled and found this:
#if __cplusplus <= 199711L
#error This library needs at least a C++11 compliant compiler
#endif
On Thu, May 28, 2015 at 8:24 AM, Hotmail (ArbolOne) wrote:
> If I am not mistaken _MSC_VER >= 1600 is the version that started
> implementing C++11. So, I test for that ve
On 05/28/2015 10:31 AM, Jonathan Wakely wrote:
> On 28 May 2015 at 16:51, Martin Sebor wrote:
>> The standard specifies that implementations conforming to C++
>> 11 must define the __cplusplus macro to 201103L, and recommends
>> that non-conforming compilers (presumably those that aim to be
>> C++1
On 05/28/2015 09:24 AM, Hotmail (ArbolOne) wrote:
> If I am not mistaken _MSC_VER >= 1600 is the version that started
> implementing C++11. So, I test for that version of the compiler in my
> code, i.e.
> #ifdef _MSC_VER >= 1600
>
> #endif
> I would like to do the same for __GNUG__, but wh
Hi,
This worked, the program compiles fine now.
It crashes with a SegFault shortly after starting a new thread (via
QThread), with a message:
RTTI symbol not found for class 'SimClientPrivate'
Are there incompatibilities of flto and cases where it cannot work?
Thanks
> FWIW, you can try movi
On 28 May 2015 at 16:51, Martin Sebor wrote:
> The standard specifies that implementations conforming to C++
> 11 must define the __cplusplus macro to 201103L, and recommends
> that non-conforming compilers (presumably those that aim to be
> C++11 conforming but whose support is incomplete) should
On Thu, May 28, 2015 at 6:51 PM, Jacek Caban wrote:
> On 05/28/15 17:29, İsmail Dönmez wrote:
>> On Thu, May 28, 2015 at 4:49 PM, Jacek Caban wrote:
>>> On 05/28/15 11:06, İsmail Dönmez wrote:
On Mon, May 25, 2015 at 7:47 PM, İsmail Dönmez wrote:
> Hi,
> .
> Noticed while tryin
On 05/28/15 17:29, İsmail Dönmez wrote:
> On Thu, May 28, 2015 at 4:49 PM, Jacek Caban wrote:
>> On 05/28/15 11:06, İsmail Dönmez wrote:
>>> On Mon, May 25, 2015 at 7:47 PM, İsmail Dönmez wrote:
Hi,
.
Noticed while trying to compile the application from
http://blogs.msdn.com/
On Thu, May 28, 2015 at 4:49 PM, Jacek Caban wrote:
> On 05/28/15 11:06, İsmail Dönmez wrote:
>> On Mon, May 25, 2015 at 7:47 PM, İsmail Dönmez wrote:
>>> Hi,
>>> .
>>> Noticed while trying to compile the application from
>>> http://blogs.msdn.com/b/oldnewthing/archive/2015/05/18/10615339.aspx .
On 28 May 2015 at 16:24, Hotmail (ArbolOne) wrote:
> If I am not mistaken _MSC_VER >= 1600 is the version that started
> implementing C++11. So, I test for that version of the compiler in my code,
> i.e.
> #ifdef _MSC_VER >= 1600
>
> #endif
> I would like to do the same for __GNUG__, but w
http://en.cppreference.com/w/cpp/compiler_support
Function testing macros: __GNUC__ and __GNUC_MINOR__
Example:
#if __GNUC__ * 100 + __GNUC_MINOR__ >= 407 // compile iff we are on g++
4.7 or later
--
Best regards,
lh_mouse
2015-05-28
---
If I am not mistaken _MSC_VER >= 1600 is the version that started
implementing C++11. So, I test for that version of the compiler in my code,
i.e.
#ifdef _MSC_VER >= 1600
#endif
I would like to do the same for __GNUG__, but what version of g++ started
implementing C++11?
Thanks
Quoting my-self:
>
> Hi,
>
> I do not have a response from NightStrike, this patch set is modifying the
> top level autoconf to work properly. Can you please consider it?
>
> For all who are not using the top level autoconf, it should not matter, as
> you do not use it anyway.
>
> For these who
Hi,
I do not have a response from NightStrike, this patch set is modifying the
top level autoconf to work properly. Can you please consider it?
For all who are not using the top level autoconf, it should not matter, as
you do not use it anyway.
For these who are, it bring us one step closer to s
On 05/28/15 11:06, İsmail Dönmez wrote:
> On Mon, May 25, 2015 at 7:47 PM, İsmail Dönmez wrote:
>> Hi,
>> .
>> Noticed while trying to compile the application from
>> http://blogs.msdn.com/b/oldnewthing/archive/2015/05/18/10615339.aspx .
>>
>> Patch attached.
> ping?
>
Looks good to me.
Thanks,
"... another off-topic ..." ?? I think this is my second or third posting,
but, hey! sorry for the posting and thanks for the welcoming comments.
Yes, it is impasse. That's one of the problem of being multilingual,
sometimes two or three languages get mixed and this kind of mistakes occur,
most
On 20/05/15 23:50, Hotmail (ArbolOne) wrote:
> When running a Win32 program, I get a prompt window, how do I remove
> this window?
Use -mwindows flag when linking, as explained in
http://mingw.org/wiki/FAQ#toc6
--
On 28/05/15 00:15, Hotmail (ArbolOne) wrote:
> This creates another problem, what if the exception is std::mem_alloc, I
> would ran out of memory, thus I wouldn't be able to create another object.
You could use placement new and a custom memory pool of exception
objects.
Andrew.
--
On Mon, May 25, 2015 at 7:47 PM, İsmail Dönmez wrote:
> Hi,
> .
> Noticed while trying to compile the application from
> http://blogs.msdn.com/b/oldnewthing/archive/2015/05/18/10615339.aspx .
>
> Patch attached.
ping?
-
On 28 May 2015 at 00:15, Hotmail (ArbolOne) wrote:
> I know, I know, this is not a C++ question, but, as I said, I am in a
> in-path, I don't know what to do in this case.
I have no idea what an in-path is (impasse?) but you've sent another
off-topic post that is not about GCC.
For general progra
27 matches
Mail list logo
