[Bug target/39063] libgcc2.c:mprotect() for mingw, incompatible pointer type warning

2009-03-19 Thread gerald at gcc dot gnu dot org
--- Comment #3 from gerald at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-03-19 10:40 --- Subject: Bug 39063 Author: gerald Date: Thu Mar 19 10:40:32 2009 New Revision: 144957 URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=144957 Log: PR target/39063 * libgcc2.c (mprotect): Do not

[Bug target/39063] libgcc2.c:mprotect() for mingw, incompatible pointer type warning

2009-03-19 Thread hjl dot tools at gmail dot com
--- Comment #4 from hjl dot tools at gmail dot com 2009-03-19 14:52 --- The fix may have broken cross compiling: http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc/2009-03/msg00525.html -- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=39063

[Bug target/39063] libgcc2.c:mprotect() for mingw, incompatible pointer type warning

2009-03-19 Thread sezeroz at gmail dot com
--- Comment #5 from sezeroz at gmail dot com 2009-03-19 17:49 --- The prototype for VirtualProtect() is known but the definition of DWORD is not?? Hrmph. In any case, it should be fixed easily by changing DWORD into unsigned int which is what a DWORD is always defined as. --

[Bug target/39063] libgcc2.c:mprotect() for mingw, incompatible pointer type warning

2009-03-14 Thread nightstrike at gmail dot com
--- Comment #2 from nightstrike at gmail dot com 2009-03-14 16:00 --- http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2009-03/msg00639.html -- nightstrike at gmail dot com changed: What|Removed |Added

[Bug target/39063] libgcc2.c:mprotect() for mingw, incompatible pointer type warning

2009-02-21 Thread ktietz at gcc dot gnu dot org
-- ktietz at gcc dot gnu dot org changed: What|Removed |Added CC||ktietz at gcc dot gnu dot |

[Bug target/39063] libgcc2.c:mprotect() for mingw, incompatible pointer type warning

2009-02-01 Thread sezeroz at gmail dot com
--- Comment #1 from sezeroz at gmail dot com 2009-02-01 16:53 --- Created an attachment (id=17222) -- (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=17222action=view) mprotect warnings fix -- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=39063