On 4 May 2010 15:11, JonY wrote:
> On 5/4/2010 21:24, Dmitrijs Ledkovs wrote:
>>
>> On 4 May 2010 12:57, JonY wrote:
>>>
>>> On 5/4/2010 18:58, Dmitrijs Ledkovs wrote:
On 4 May 2010 10:40, JonY wrote:
>
> On 5/4/2010 17:08, Dmitrijs Ledkovs wrote:
>>
>> On 4 May 2010
On 5/4/2010 21:24, Dmitrijs Ledkovs wrote:
> On 4 May 2010 12:57, JonY wrote:
>> On 5/4/2010 18:58, Dmitrijs Ledkovs wrote:
>>>
>>> On 4 May 2010 10:40, JonYwrote:
On 5/4/2010 17:08, Dmitrijs Ledkovs wrote:
>
> On 4 May 2010 10:03, Ozkan Sezer wrote:
>>
>> On Tue
On 4 May 2010 14:31, Ozkan Sezer wrote:
> On Tue, May 4, 2010 at 4:27 PM, Ozkan Sezer wrote:
>>> By why does this not fail when building native linux compiler? I'm
>>> using same patched source as used by the distribution in that field.
>>> By inspected the said function I fail to see what's wron
On Tue, May 4, 2010 at 4:27 PM, Ozkan Sezer wrote:
>> By why does this not fail when building native linux compiler? I'm
>> using same patched source as used by the distribution in that field.
>> By inspected the said function I fail to see what's wrong with it. Can
>> you explain what's wrong wit
> By why does this not fail when building native linux compiler? I'm
> using same patched source as used by the distribution in that field.
> By inspected the said function I fail to see what's wrong with it. Can
> you explain what's wrong with:
>
> static char name [UNLEN + 1];
> DWORD namelen
On 4 May 2010 12:57, JonY wrote:
> On 5/4/2010 18:58, Dmitrijs Ledkovs wrote:
>>
>> On 4 May 2010 10:40, JonY wrote:
>>>
>>> On 5/4/2010 17:08, Dmitrijs Ledkovs wrote:
On 4 May 2010 10:03, Ozkan Sezer wrote:
>
> On Tue, May 4, 2010 at 10:53 AM, Dmitrijs Ledkovs
> wrot
On 5/4/2010 18:58, Dmitrijs Ledkovs wrote:
> On 4 May 2010 10:40, JonY wrote:
>> On 5/4/2010 17:08, Dmitrijs Ledkovs wrote:
>>>
>>> On 4 May 2010 10:03, Ozkan Sezerwrote:
On Tue, May 4, 2010 at 10:53 AM, Dmitrijs Ledkovs
wrote:
>
> On 4 May 2010 07:51, Ozkan Sezer
On 4 May 2010 10:40, JonY wrote:
> On 5/4/2010 17:08, Dmitrijs Ledkovs wrote:
>>
>> On 4 May 2010 10:03, Ozkan Sezer wrote:
>>>
>>> On Tue, May 4, 2010 at 10:53 AM, Dmitrijs Ledkovs
>>> wrote:
On 4 May 2010 07:51, Ozkan Sezer wrote:
>
> On Tue, May 4, 2010 at 9:44 AM, Dmitrij
On 5/4/2010 17:08, Dmitrijs Ledkovs wrote:
> On 4 May 2010 10:03, Ozkan Sezer wrote:
>> On Tue, May 4, 2010 at 10:53 AM, Dmitrijs Ledkovs
>> wrote:
>>> On 4 May 2010 07:51, Ozkan Sezer wrote:
On Tue, May 4, 2010 at 9:44 AM, Dmitrijs Ledkovs
wrote:
> the patch link from documenta
On 4 May 2010 10:03, Ozkan Sezer wrote:
> On Tue, May 4, 2010 at 10:53 AM, Dmitrijs Ledkovs
> wrote:
>> On 4 May 2010 07:51, Ozkan Sezer wrote:
>>> On Tue, May 4, 2010 at 9:44 AM, Dmitrijs Ledkovs
>>> wrote:
the patch link from documentation doesn't apply from me.
neither against
On Tue, May 4, 2010 at 10:53 AM, Dmitrijs Ledkovs
wrote:
> On 4 May 2010 07:51, Ozkan Sezer wrote:
>> On Tue, May 4, 2010 at 9:44 AM, Dmitrijs Ledkovs
>> wrote:
>>> the patch link from documentation doesn't apply from me.
>>>
>>> neither against tarball nor against cvs please help.
>>
>> Is the
On 4 May 2010 07:51, Ozkan Sezer wrote:
> On Tue, May 4, 2010 at 9:44 AM, Dmitrijs Ledkovs
> wrote:
>> the patch link from documentation doesn't apply from me.
>>
>> neither against tarball nor against cvs please help.
>
> Is the patch from here?
> http://mingw-w64.svn.sourceforge.net/viewvc/ming
On Tue, May 4, 2010 at 9:44 AM, Dmitrijs Ledkovs
wrote:
> the patch link from documentation doesn't apply from me.
>
> neither against tarball nor against cvs please help.
Is the patch from here?
http://mingw-w64.svn.sourceforge.net/viewvc/mingw-w64/experimental/patches/pthreads_win32/
That one
the patch link from documentation doesn't apply from me.
neither against tarball nor against cvs please help.
shared binutils built successfully
--
___
Mingw-w64-public mailing
14 matches
Mail list logo
