Farid Zaripov wrote:
-----Original Message-----
From: Martin Sebor [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Martin Sebor
Sent: Wednesday, June 25, 2008 7:07 AM
To: [email protected]
Subject: Re: Patch for MinGW
Hmm. So the differences are:
MinGW _CRITICAL_SECTION InterlockedXxx (long*)
Windows _RTL_CRITICAL_SECTION InterlockedXxx (volatile long*)
I would be inclined to hardcode the name of the critical
section type. I'm less sure about the InterlockedXxx
argument. I wouldn't be surprised if MinGW followed in
Windows footsteps at some point in the future.
If the MinGW maintainers will do that, they could rename
_CRITICAL_SECTION as well. :)
Have you tried to find out from the maintainers of the project?
I've found that they're fixed InterlockedXXX() argument issue in CVS
recently:
http://sourceforge.net/tracker/index.php?func=detail&aid=1996620&group_i
d=2435&atid=102435
So we should recover ATOMIC_OPS.cpp test to support old and new
releases of the MinGW.
Sounds reasonable.
Martin
Farid.
