On Tue, Mar 23, 2010 at 8:48 AM, Ozkan Sezer wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 23, 2010 at 2:43 PM, Kai Tietz wrote:
>>
>> It is the use of USER, right? This is fine at the moment, but I
>
> Yes, the USER_H mechanism.
>
>> dislike it as we then have to maintain changes of gcc within our
>> headers. What's abo
On Tue, Mar 23, 2010 at 9:02 AM, Ozkan Sezer wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 23, 2010 at 3:00 PM, NightStrike wrote:
>> On Tue, Mar 23, 2010 at 8:48 AM, Ozkan Sezer wrote:
>>> I can't understand, how can a fixinclude fix this thing??
>>
>> As I understand it, our headers are already being fixincluded. It's
On Tue, Mar 23, 2010 at 9:00 AM, NightStrike wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 23, 2010 at 8:48 AM, Ozkan Sezer wrote:
>> I can't understand, how can a fixinclude fix this thing??
>
> As I understand it, our headers are already being fixincluded. It's
> fixincludes that causes GCC to override us. That means
On Tue, Mar 23, 2010 at 3:00 PM, NightStrike wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 23, 2010 at 8:48 AM, Ozkan Sezer wrote:
>> I can't understand, how can a fixinclude fix this thing??
>
> As I understand it, our headers are already being fixincluded. It's
> fixincludes that causes GCC to override us. That means
On Tue, Mar 23, 2010 at 8:48 AM, Ozkan Sezer wrote:
> I can't understand, how can a fixinclude fix this thing??
As I understand it, our headers are already being fixincluded. It's
fixincludes that causes GCC to override us. That means that there's
stuff in our headers that GCC doesn't like.
---
On Tue, Mar 23, 2010 at 2:52 PM, Kai Tietz wrote:
> 2010/3/23 Ozkan Sezer :
>> On Tue, Mar 23, 2010 at 2:43 PM, Kai Tietz wrote:
>>> 2010/3/23 Ozkan Sezer :
On Tue, Mar 23, 2010 at 2:17 PM, NightStrike wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 23, 2010 at 8:15 AM, Kai Tietz
> wrote:
>> 2010/3/23 N
2010/3/23 Ozkan Sezer :
> On Tue, Mar 23, 2010 at 2:43 PM, Kai Tietz wrote:
>> 2010/3/23 Ozkan Sezer :
>>> On Tue, Mar 23, 2010 at 2:17 PM, NightStrike wrote:
On Tue, Mar 23, 2010 at 8:15 AM, Kai Tietz wrote:
> 2010/3/23 NightStrike :
>> On Tue, Mar 23, 2010 at 12:57 AM, Mook
>>
On Tue, Mar 23, 2010 at 2:43 PM, Kai Tietz wrote:
> 2010/3/23 Ozkan Sezer :
>> On Tue, Mar 23, 2010 at 2:17 PM, NightStrike wrote:
>>> On Tue, Mar 23, 2010 at 8:15 AM, Kai Tietz wrote:
2010/3/23 NightStrike :
> On Tue, Mar 23, 2010 at 12:57 AM, Mook
> wrote:
>> On Sun, Mar 21,
2010/3/23 NightStrike :
> On Tue, Mar 23, 2010 at 12:57 AM, Mook
> wrote:
>> On Sun, Mar 21, 2010 at 4:22 PM, NightStrike wrote:
>>> On Sun, Mar 21, 2010 at 5:20 PM, Ozkan Sezer wrote:
For some reason yet unknown to me, the gcc-provided headers
have priority over the system provided he
2010/3/23 Ozkan Sezer :
> On Tue, Mar 23, 2010 at 2:17 PM, NightStrike wrote:
>> On Tue, Mar 23, 2010 at 8:15 AM, Kai Tietz wrote:
>>> 2010/3/23 NightStrike :
On Tue, Mar 23, 2010 at 12:57 AM, Mook
wrote:
> On Sun, Mar 21, 2010 at 4:22 PM, NightStrike
> wrote:
>> On Sun,
On Tue, Mar 23, 2010 at 2:17 PM, NightStrike wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 23, 2010 at 8:15 AM, Kai Tietz wrote:
>> 2010/3/23 NightStrike :
>>> On Tue, Mar 23, 2010 at 12:57 AM, Mook
>>> wrote:
On Sun, Mar 21, 2010 at 4:22 PM, NightStrike wrote:
> On Sun, Mar 21, 2010 at 5:20 PM, Ozkan Sezer w
On Tue, Mar 23, 2010 at 8:15 AM, Kai Tietz wrote:
> 2010/3/23 NightStrike :
>> On Tue, Mar 23, 2010 at 12:57 AM, Mook
>> wrote:
>>> On Sun, Mar 21, 2010 at 4:22 PM, NightStrike wrote:
On Sun, Mar 21, 2010 at 5:20 PM, Ozkan Sezer wrote:
> For some reason yet unknown to me, the gcc-provi
On Tue, Mar 23, 2010 at 12:57 AM, Mook
wrote:
> On Sun, Mar 21, 2010 at 4:22 PM, NightStrike wrote:
>> On Sun, Mar 21, 2010 at 5:20 PM, Ozkan Sezer wrote:
>>> For some reason yet unknown to me, the gcc-provided headers
>>> have priority over the system provided headers and float.h is
>>> especia
On Sun, Mar 21, 2010 at 4:22 PM, NightStrike wrote:
> On Sun, Mar 21, 2010 at 5:20 PM, Ozkan Sezer wrote:
>> For some reason yet unknown to me, the gcc-provided headers
>> have priority over the system provided headers and float.h is
>> especially problematic: Not installing or deleting it is the
Thanks Ozkan, that did the trick... the linear algebra libs now compile and
work as expected...
thanks,
-dave
On Sun, Mar 21, 2010 at 2:20 PM, Ozkan Sezer wrote:
> On Sun, Mar 21, 2010 at 10:42 PM, Dave Camarillo
> wrote:
> > Hello, I'm having a little trouble with the include paths used by
>
2010/3/22 Doug Semler :
> On Sun, Mar 21, 2010 at 8:51 PM, NightStrike wrote:
>> On Sun, Mar 21, 2010 at 7:41 PM, Doug Semler wrote:
>>> On Sun, 21 Mar 2010 19:22:48 NightStrike wrote:
On Sun, Mar 21, 2010 at 5:20 PM, Ozkan Sezer wrote:
> For some reason yet unknown to me, the gcc-prov
On Sun, Mar 21, 2010 at 8:51 PM, NightStrike wrote:
> On Sun, Mar 21, 2010 at 7:41 PM, Doug Semler wrote:
>> On Sun, 21 Mar 2010 19:22:48 NightStrike wrote:
>>> On Sun, Mar 21, 2010 at 5:20 PM, Ozkan Sezer wrote:
>>> > For some reason yet unknown to me, the gcc-provided headers
>>> > have priori
On Mon, Mar 22, 2010 at 2:51 AM, NightStrike wrote:
> On Sun, Mar 21, 2010 at 7:41 PM, Doug Semler wrote:
>> On Sun, 21 Mar 2010 19:22:48 NightStrike wrote:
>>> On Sun, Mar 21, 2010 at 5:20 PM, Ozkan Sezer wrote:
>>> > For some reason yet unknown to me, the gcc-provided headers
>>> > have priori
On Sun, Mar 21, 2010 at 7:41 PM, Doug Semler wrote:
> On Sun, 21 Mar 2010 19:22:48 NightStrike wrote:
>> On Sun, Mar 21, 2010 at 5:20 PM, Ozkan Sezer wrote:
>> > For some reason yet unknown to me, the gcc-provided headers
>> > have priority over the system provided headers and float.h is
>> > esp
On Sun, 21 Mar 2010 19:22:48 NightStrike wrote:
> On Sun, Mar 21, 2010 at 5:20 PM, Ozkan Sezer wrote:
> > For some reason yet unknown to me, the gcc-provided headers
> > have priority over the system provided headers and float.h is
> > especially problematic: Not installing or deleting it is the s
On Sun, Mar 21, 2010 at 5:20 PM, Ozkan Sezer wrote:
> For some reason yet unknown to me, the gcc-provided headers
> have priority over the system provided headers and float.h is
> especially problematic: Not installing or deleting it is the solution,
> at least for now.
If gcc headers didn't take
On Sun, Mar 21, 2010 at 10:42 PM, Dave Camarillo
wrote:
> Hello, I'm having a little trouble with the include paths used by mingw-w64
> and was hoping for some insight... I have this chunk of code compiling
> correctly under the normal mingw system, but have some problems with include
> search pat
Hello, I'm having a little trouble with the include paths used by mingw-w64
and was hoping for some insight... I have this chunk of code compiling
correctly under the normal mingw system, but have some problems with include
search paths with the w64 version... As far as I can tell, it's just pullin
23 matches
Mail list logo