> The only really interesting point about this patch would be: > What actually happens if one tries to compile / run the old code with GCC > in 64-bit? > Raising the question if we should remove the > > defined(__CYGWIN__) > > I *think* this is the area that's causing me concern. I want to ensure we don't break existing uses.
Effectively, we need the following test matrix: 1. i386 Cygwin, i386 host (i.e., 32-bit Windows) 2. x86_64 Cygwin, x86_64 host (i.e., 64-bit Windows) 3. i386 Cygwin, x86_64 host (i.e., 64-bit Windows) 4. x86_64 Cygwin, -m32 option on x86_64 (i.e., 64-bit Windows) If push comes to shove, I'll build out the test environment at the house. Jeff -- -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the "Crypto++ Users" Google Group. To unsubscribe, send an email to [email protected]. More information about Crypto++ and this group is available at http://www.cryptopp.com. --- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Crypto++ Users" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
