[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: bignum branch
From: |
Eli Zaretskii |
Subject: |
Re: bignum branch |
Date: |
Sat, 04 Aug 2018 09:11:49 +0300 |
> From: Andy Moreton <address@hidden>
> Date: Fri, 03 Aug 2018 20:54:34 +0100
>
> If I apply the following from master to the bignum branch then a 32bit
> MinGW build succeeds:
>
> 024d20f81e ("Fix compilation with mingw.org's MinGW 5.x headers")
> bd52f37cae ("Fix last change: only MinGW runtime 5.0.2 and later needs
> that.")
That's a surprise: I thought MinGW64 uses its own headers for 32-bit
builds, whereas the above commits fix problems specific to mingw.org's
headers. At the time, I looked at the MinGW64 headers, and my
conclusion was that this particular problem doesn't exist there.
And the fix is conditioned on __MINGW32_VERSION, which AFAIK doesn't
exist in the MinGW64 headers.
You did use MinGW64 for the 32-bit build, right? If so, can you help
me understand what I am missing here?
- Re: bignum branch, Andy Moreton, 2018/08/02
- Re: bignum branch, Eli Zaretskii, 2018/08/03
- Re: bignum branch, Andy Moreton, 2018/08/03
- Re: bignum branch, Eli Zaretskii, 2018/08/03
- Re: bignum branch, Andy Moreton, 2018/08/03
- Re: bignum branch, Eli Zaretskii, 2018/08/03
- Re: bignum branch, Andy Moreton, 2018/08/03
- Re: bignum branch, Eli Zaretskii, 2018/08/03
- Re: bignum branch, Andy Moreton, 2018/08/03
- Re: bignum branch,
Eli Zaretskii <=
- Re: bignum branch, Andy Moreton, 2018/08/04
- Re: bignum branch, Eli Zaretskii, 2018/08/04
- Re: bignum branch, Tom Tromey, 2018/08/03
- Re: bignum branch, Paul Eggert, 2018/08/03
- Re: bignum branch, Tom Tromey, 2018/08/03
- Re: bignum branch, Paul Eggert, 2018/08/03
- Re: bignum branch, Eli Zaretskii, 2018/08/04
- Re: bignum branch, Achim Gratz, 2018/08/04
- Re: bignum branch, Eli Zaretskii, 2018/08/04
- Re: bignum branch, Achim Gratz, 2018/08/04