* Christopher Hulbert wrote on Tue, Apr 03, 2007 at 09:22:31PM CEST:
On 4/3/07, Ralf Wildenhues [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Thanks for your patch. But really when porting to a w64 system
(including a specific compiler and toolset), I'd prefer a reasonably
complete port, at least including
The attached patch allows compilers without unistd.h to generate
executables on windows 32 and 64-bit. This may not be the desired
version since it will be active on at least the MINGW host. On the
other hand, MINGW will support the code so it may not be a big deal.
Note: The relevant hunks of
Hello Christopher,
* Christopher Hulbert wrote on Tue, Apr 03, 2007 at 08:36:02PM CEST:
The attached patch allows compilers without unistd.h to generate
executables on windows 32 and 64-bit. This may not be the desired
version since it will be active on at least the MINGW host. On the
other
On 4/3/07, Ralf Wildenhues [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hello Christopher,
* Christopher Hulbert wrote on Tue, Apr 03, 2007 at 08:36:02PM CEST:
The attached patch allows compilers without unistd.h to generate
executables on windows 32 and 64-bit. This may not be the desired
version since it will
The attached patch allows compilers without unistd.h to generate
executables on windows 32 and 64-bit. This may not be the desired
version since it will be active on at least the MINGW host. On the
other hand, MINGW will support the code so it may not be a big deal.
Note: The relevant hunks of
Hello Christopher,
* Christopher Hulbert wrote on Tue, Apr 03, 2007 at 08:36:02PM CEST:
The attached patch allows compilers without unistd.h to generate
executables on windows 32 and 64-bit. This may not be the desired
version since it will be active on at least the MINGW host. On the
other
On 4/3/07, Ralf Wildenhues [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hello Christopher,
* Christopher Hulbert wrote on Tue, Apr 03, 2007 at 08:36:02PM CEST:
The attached patch allows compilers without unistd.h to generate
executables on windows 32 and 64-bit. This may not be the desired
version since it will
