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
On 9/14/2013 21:46, Incongruous wrote:
> JonY, just to let you know that your emails come as an attachment in not in
> the body of the email.
> Sorry :)
Use a client that supports PGP/MIME, something other than Outlook express.
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
---
On Sat, Sep 14, 2013 at 9:44 AM, Ruben Van Boxem
wrote:
> Op 14-sep.-2013 13:50 schreef "Erik van Pienbroek"
> het volgende:
>
> >
> > JonY schreef op za 14-09-2013 om 19:24 [+0800]:
> > > Daily automated tarballs already done by buildbot. Probably need to add
> > > something like svnversion to g
JonY, just to let you know that your emails come as an attachment in not in
the body of the email.
Sorry :)
-Original Message-
From: JonY
Sent: Friday, September 13, 2013 9:39 PM
To: mingw-w64-public@lists.sourceforge.net
Subject: Re: [Mingw-w64-public] mingw-w64 v3 release calling for
Op 14-sep.-2013 13:50 schreef "Erik van Pienbroek"
het volgende:
>
> JonY schreef op za 14-09-2013 om 19:24 [+0800]:
> > Daily automated tarballs already done by buildbot. Probably need to add
> > something like svnversion to generate release revision info in a special
> > header.
>
> I personally
On 9/14/2013 19:49, Erik van Pienbroek wrote:
> JonY schreef op za 14-09-2013 om 19:24 [+0800]:
>> Daily automated tarballs already done by buildbot. Probably need to add
>> something like svnversion to generate release revision info in a special
>> header.
>
> I personally think daily releases ar
JonY schreef op za 14-09-2013 om 19:24 [+0800]:
> Daily automated tarballs already done by buildbot. Probably need to add
> something like svnversion to generate release revision info in a special
> header.
I personally think daily releases are a bit too much bleeding edge. Of
course they're usefu
On 9/14/13, Erik van Pienbroek wrote:
> Adrien Nader schreef op za 14-09-2013 om 08:13 [+0200]:
>> I've already mentioned that; I really prefer to have tarballs and
>> releases, even if they are "preview" or "alpha".
>> Currently everyone uses a different CRT and it's almost impossible to
>> remem
On 9/14/2013 19:11, Erik van Pienbroek wrote:
> Adrien Nader schreef op za 14-09-2013 om 08:13 [+0200]:
>> I've already mentioned that; I really prefer to have tarballs and
>> releases, even if they are "preview" or "alpha".
>> Currently everyone uses a different CRT and it's almost impossible to
>
Adrien Nader schreef op za 14-09-2013 om 08:13 [+0200]:
> I've already mentioned that; I really prefer to have tarballs and
> releases, even if they are "preview" or "alpha".
> Currently everyone uses a different CRT and it's almost impossible to
> remember the differences between them.
>
> PS: I
On 9/14/2013 14:03, 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, p
Hi,
On Sat, Sep 14, 2013, Kai Tietz wrote:
> 2013/9/14 JonY :
> > Trunk is already the devel branch, /stable/* is for stable users. what
> > we could do is make a new "/testing" that constantly have safe and
> > proven changes merged from /trunk, kind of like debian-testing, where
> > trunk is Sid
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, provide a version check later on for changed
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, provide a version check later on for changed
>> behavior.
>
> I don
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, provide a version check later on for changed
behavior.
By this experience - as it must be possible to modify things on our
trunk and our release c
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, provide a version check later on for changed
> behavior.
I don't know the specifics about that fallout, but is
On 9/6/2013 18:43, JonY wrote:
> Hello all,
>
> We will be releasing v3 from trunk soon. Testers, please check with the
> latest trunk version if any of the changes break your applications!
>
> Some of the new changes since v2 include:
>
> * Improved floating point math performance
> * Improved
> -Original Message-
> From: Kai Tietz [mailto:ktiet...@googlemail.com]
> Sent: Friday, September 13, 2013 11:25 AM
> To: mingw-w64-public@lists.sourceforge.net
> Subject: Re: [Mingw-w64-public] mingw-w64 v3 release calling for testers
>
> [...]
> The idea to use
Koehne Kai schreef op vr 13-09-2013 om 09:21 [+]:
> > The above toolchains work just fine with the patches ... However, with the
> >
> > http://sourceforge.net/projects/mingw-
> > w64/files/Toolchains%20targetting%20Win32/Personal%20Builds/mingw-
> > builds/4.8.1/threads-win32/dwarf/x32-4.8.1
Kai Tietz schreef op vr 13-09-2013 om 11:24 [+0200]:
> HI,
>
> we had in the past already the idea to add svn-revision-number to
> identify version proper. See for this in the mingw-w64-crt/ folder
> the header revstamp.h (a side-note ... actual the place should be
> IMHO instead the mingw-w64-i
HI,
we had in the past already the idea to add svn-revision-number to
identify version proper. See for this in the mingw-w64-crt/ folder
the header revstamp.h (a side-note ... actual the place should be
IMHO instead the mingw-w64-include folder ). We would need a
server for doing this stamp
> > -Original Message-
> > From: Erik van Pienbroek [mailto:e...@vanpienbroek.nl]
> > Sent: Thursday, September 12, 2013 1:00 PM
> > To: mingw-w64-public@lists.sourceforge.net
> > Subject: Re: [Mingw-w64-public] mingw-w64 v3 release calling for
> > test
> -Original Message-
> From: Erik van Pienbroek [mailto:e...@vanpienbroek.nl]
> Sent: Thursday, September 12, 2013 1:00 PM
> To: mingw-w64-public@lists.sourceforge.net
> Subject: Re: [Mingw-w64-public] mingw-w64 v3 release calling for testers
>
> Koehne Kai schree
On 9/13/2013 04:51, Erik van Pienbroek wrote:
> JonY schreef op ma 09-09-2013 om 20:32 [+0800]:
>>> mingw-tk-8.5.13-3
>>> Build logs:
>>> http://build1.vanpienbroek.nl/fedora-mingw-rebuild/20130909/mingw-tk-8.5.13-3
>>>
>>
>> tkWinSend.c:758:9: error: 'VARIANT' has no member named 'vt'
>>
JonY schreef op ma 09-09-2013 om 20:32 [+0800]:
> > mingw-tk-8.5.13-3
> > Build logs:
> > http://build1.vanpienbroek.nl/fedora-mingw-rebuild/20130909/mingw-tk-8.5.13-3
> >
>
> tkWinSend.c:758:9: error: 'VARIANT' has no member named 'vt'
> vCmd.vt = VT_BSTR;
>
> Kai, does oaidl.h nee
With r6277 the wine-gecko and wine-mono failures are resolved.
As mentioned earlier the qt5-qtbase build failure was already resolved by
patching qt5-qtbase.
The qt5-qtsystems issue turned out to be caused by a local patch
we were carrying in qt5-qtbase because of compatibility issues with DBus.
Koehne Kai schreef op do 12-09-2013 om 06:51 [+]:
> > As there are no macros inside
> > mingw-w64 which identify the svn revision all I could came up with is a
> > '__MINGW64_VERSION_MAJOR < 3' conditional as best possible solution.
>
> So which toolchains / Mingw-w64 versions would still bre
> -Original Message-
> From: Erik van Pienbroek [mailto:e...@vanpienbroek.nl]
> Sent: Thursday, September 12, 2013 12:40 AM
> To: mingw-w64-public@lists.sourceforge.net
> Subject: Re: [Mingw-w64-public] mingw-w64 v3 release calling for testers
>
> Erik van Pienbroe
Erik van Pienbroek schreef op di 10-09-2013 om 20:25 [+0200]:
> qt5-qtbase:
> ---
>
> /builddir/build/BUILD/qtbase-opensource-src-5.1.1/src/plugins/platforms/windows/qwindowsdialoghelpers.cpp:236:8:
> error: redefinition of 'struct IEnumShellItems'
> DECLARE_INTERFACE_(IEnumShellItems, I
On 09/11/13 10:22, Kai Tietz wrote:
> 2013/9/11 Jacek Caban :
>> On 09/10/13 20:35, Jacek Caban wrote:
>>> On 9/10/13 8:25 PM, Erik van Pienbroek wrote:
wine-gecko:
---
../../widget/windows/JumpListBuilder.o: In function
`ZN7mozilla6widget15JumpListBuilderC2Ev':
>>>
2013/9/11 Jacek Caban :
> On 09/10/13 20:35, Jacek Caban wrote:
>> On 9/10/13 8:25 PM, Erik van Pienbroek wrote:
>>> wine-gecko:
>>> ---
>>>
>>> ../../widget/windows/JumpListBuilder.o: In function
>>> `ZN7mozilla6widget15JumpListBuilderC2Ev':
>>> /builddir/build/BUILD/mingw-wine-gecko-2.21/
On 09/10/13 20:35, Jacek Caban wrote:
> On 9/10/13 8:25 PM, Erik van Pienbroek wrote:
>> wine-gecko:
>> ---
>>
>> ../../widget/windows/JumpListBuilder.o: In function
>> `ZN7mozilla6widget15JumpListBuilderC2Ev':
>> /builddir/build/BUILD/mingw-wine-gecko-2.21/wine-mozilla-2.21/widget/windows/
On 9/10/13 8:25 PM, Erik van Pienbroek wrote:
> wine-gecko:
> ---
>
> ../../widget/windows/JumpListBuilder.o: In function
> `ZN7mozilla6widget15JumpListBuilderC2Ev':
> /builddir/build/BUILD/mingw-wine-gecko-2.21/wine-mozilla-2.21/widget/windows/JumpListBuilder.cpp:54:
> undefined reference
JonY schreef op vr 06-09-2013 om 18:43 [+0800]:
> Hello all,
>
> We will be releasing v3 from trunk soon. Testers, please check with the
> latest trunk version if any of the changes break your applications!
I've done another test run against r6259. The amount of failures is
reduced now, but we're
Hi Erik,
2013/9/10 Erik van Pienbroek wrote:
> JonY schreef op di 10-09-2013 om 06:25 [+0800]:
>> On 9/10/2013 04:48, Erik van Pienbroek wrote:
>> > JonY schreef op ma 09-09-2013 om 20:32 [+0800]:
>> >> On 9/9/2013 19:35, Erik van Pienbroek wrote:
>> >>> wine-mono-0.0.8-3
>> >>> Build logs
JonY schreef op di 10-09-2013 om 06:25 [+0800]:
> On 9/10/2013 04:48, Erik van Pienbroek wrote:
> > JonY schreef op ma 09-09-2013 om 20:32 [+0800]:
> >> On 9/9/2013 19:35, Erik van Pienbroek wrote:
> >>> wine-mono-0.0.8-3
> >>> Build logs:
> >>> http://build1.vanpienbroek.nl/fedora-mingw-re
On 9/10/2013 04:48, Erik van Pienbroek wrote:
> JonY schreef op ma 09-09-2013 om 20:32 [+0800]:
>> On 9/9/2013 19:35, Erik van Pienbroek wrote:
>>> wine-mono-0.0.8-3
>>> Build logs:
>>> http://build1.vanpienbroek.nl/fedora-mingw-rebuild/20130909/wine-mono-0.0.8-3
>>>
>
> I just tried to re
JonY schreef op ma 09-09-2013 om 20:32 [+0800]:
> On 9/9/2013 19:35, Erik van Pienbroek wrote:
> > wine-mono-0.0.8-3
> > Build logs:
> > http://build1.vanpienbroek.nl/fedora-mingw-rebuild/20130909/wine-mono-0.0.8-3
> >
I just tried to rebuild this one against the latest svn (r6258) and it
Kai Tietz writes:
> Why? A fix for this problem was already applied upstream. See ChangeLog
>
> 2013-07-08 Kai Tietz
>
> PR target/56892
> * config/i386/i386.c (TARGET_FUNCTION_ATTRIBUTE_INLINABLE_P): Define
> as
> hook_bool_const_tree_true.
Thanks Kai. I was looking a
Agreed.
2013/9/9 Jacek Caban :
> On 09/09/13 14:32, JonY wrote:
>> tkWinSend.c:758:9: error: 'VARIANT' has no member named 'vt'
>> vCmd.vt = VT_BSTR;
>>
>> Kai, does oaidl.h needs fixing?
>
> I may add some info about this. This is a regression from (see changed
> #if around __VARIANT_NAME_*)
On 09/09/13 14:32, JonY wrote:
> tkWinSend.c:758:9: error: 'VARIANT' has no member named 'vt'
> vCmd.vt = VT_BSTR;
>
> Kai, does oaidl.h needs fixing?
I may add some info about this. This is a regression from (see changed
#if around __VARIANT_NAME_*):
http://repo.or.cz/w/mingw-w64/jacek.git/c
Why? A fix for this problem was already applied upstream. See ChangeLog
2013-07-08 Kai Tietz
PR target/56892
* config/i386/i386.c (TARGET_FUNCTION_ATTRIBUTE_INLINABLE_P): Define as
hook_bool_const_tree_true.
Regards,
Kai
On 9/9/2013 20:10, Óscar Fuentes wrote:
> JonY writes:
>
>> We will be releasing v3 from trunk soon. Testers, please check with the
>> latest trunk version if any of the changes break your applications!
>
> This critical pessimization affecting C++ is still unresolved:
>
> http://gcc.gnu.org/bu
On 9/9/2013 19:35, Erik van Pienbroek wrote:
> JonY schreef op vr 06-09-2013 om 18:43 [+0800]:
>
>> Hello all,
>>
>> We will be releasing v3 from trunk soon. Testers, please check with the
>> latest trunk version if any of the changes break your applications!
>
>
> Here are the initial results o
JonY writes:
> We will be releasing v3 from trunk soon. Testers, please check with the
> latest trunk version if any of the changes break your applications!
This critical pessimization affecting C++ is still unresolved:
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56892
Kai discussed the issue
JonY schreef op vr 06-09-2013 om 18:43 [+0800]:
> Hello all,
>
> We will be releasing v3 from trunk soon. Testers, please check with the
> latest trunk version if any of the changes break your applications!
Here are the initial results of a test mass rebuild which was done
against r6233.
The fo
Hmmpf, that was a minor mutt-failure on my end.
I didn't intend to include the mailing-list and I was replying to
nixman.
--
Adrien Nader
--
Learn the latest--Visual Studio 2012, SharePoint 2013, SQL 2012, more!
Discove
Hi,
I've noticed that the file uploads were being reported as uploaded by
you in the RSS feed while the mingw-w64-bbot has its name.
Can you check that you have your (nick)name properly set on the
sourceforge side?
Also, have you done anything else than upload new files?
I'm trying to understand
2013/9/6 niXman:
> It's good news!
>
> Now I'll try to rebuild all variants of mingw-builds(dwarf,sjlj,seh)
> based on gcc-4.8.1.
> I'll inform into this thread about the result.
done:
http://sourceforge.net/projects/mingw-w64/files/Toolchains%20targetting%20Win32/Personal%20Builds/mingw-builds/
On 08/09/2013, at 12:48 PM, Tony Theodore wrote:
>
> On 07/09/2013, at 3:25 AM, NightStrike wrote:
>
>> I'm at least trying to get the winpthreads build fixes in that you asked for
>
> On r6232, I'm seeing these build errors in winpthreads itself:
Ignore that, it's since been fixed.
I'll c
On 9/8/2013 10:48, Tony Theodore wrote:
>
> On 07/09/2013, at 3:25 AM, NightStrike wrote:
>
>> On Fri, Sep 6, 2013 at 11:25 AM, Erik van Pienbroek
>>>
>>> Before I kick off another test mass rebuild I would like to know whether
>>> there are still any winpthreads changes pending. Previous test ma
On 07/09/2013, at 3:25 AM, NightStrike wrote:
> On Fri, Sep 6, 2013 at 11:25 AM, Erik van Pienbroek
>>
>> Before I kick off another test mass rebuild I would like to know whether
>> there are still any winpthreads changes pending. Previous test mass
>> rebuilds have shown that there are some ar
On Fri, Sep 6, 2013 at 11:25 AM, Erik van Pienbroek
wrote:
> JonY schreef op vr 06-09-2013 om 18:43 [+0800]:
>> We will be releasing v3 from trunk soon. Testers, please check with the
>> latest trunk version if any of the changes break your applications!
>
> Hi Jon and other mingw-w64 devs,
>
> It
JonY schreef op vr 06-09-2013 om 18:43 [+0800]:
> We will be releasing v3 from trunk soon. Testers, please check with the
> latest trunk version if any of the changes break your applications!
Hi Jon and other mingw-w64 devs,
It's great to hear that v3 will be released any day now!
Before I kick
2013/9/6 JonY:
> Hello all,
>
> We will be releasing v3 from trunk soon. Testers, please check with the
> latest trunk version if any of the changes break your applications!
>
> Some of the new changes since v2 include:
>
> * Improved floating point math performance
> * Improved MSVC compiler intri
Hello all,
We will be releasing v3 from trunk soon. Testers, please check with the
latest trunk version if any of the changes break your applications!
Some of the new changes since v2 include:
* Improved floating point math performance
* Improved MSVC compiler intrinsics performance
* C99 printf
61 matches
Mail list logo
