On 2/19/2013 08:12, Xiaofan Chen wrote:
On Tue, Feb 19, 2013 at 6:12 AM, JonY jo...@users.sourceforge.net wrote:
On 2/18/2013 22:56, Xiaofan Chen wrote:
Ref:
http://developer.intra2net.com/mailarchive/html/libftdi/2013/msg00137.html
I am trying to build the 64bit Python (2.7.3 and 3.3)
On Tue, Feb 19, 2013 at 5:22 PM, JonY jo...@users.sourceforge.net wrote:
On 2/19/2013 08:12, Xiaofan Chen wrote:
On Tue, Feb 19, 2013 at 6:12 AM, JonY jo...@users.sourceforge.net wrote:
On 2/18/2013 22:56, Xiaofan Chen wrote:
Ref:
There are mingw pythons around if you want to try that route?
On 19 Feb 2013 13:45, Xiaofan Chen xiaof...@gmail.com wrote:
On Tue, Feb 19, 2013 at 5:22 PM, JonY jo...@users.sourceforge.net wrote:
On 2/19/2013 08:12, Xiaofan Chen wrote:
On Tue, Feb 19, 2013 at 6:12 AM, JonY
2013/2/19 Xiaofan Chen xiaof...@gmail.com
On Tue, Feb 19, 2013 at 5:22 PM, JonY jo...@users.sourceforge.net wrote:
On 2/19/2013 08:12, Xiaofan Chen wrote:
On Tue, Feb 19, 2013 at 6:12 AM, JonY jo...@users.sourceforge.net
wrote:
On 2/18/2013 22:56, Xiaofan Chen wrote:
Ref:
Hi all,
please find two patches to fix/improve TLS support in mingw-w64-crt attached.
The first diff is an actual bug fix; it corrects the TLS start address
written to the TLS dictionary (_tls_used). It is used to determine the
size and initial contents of the TLS area for new threads. If it
Hi,
well,
- (ULONG_PTR) _tls_start+1, (ULONG_PTR) _tls_end,
+ (ULONG_PTR) _tls_start, (ULONG_PTR) _tls_end,
looks to me wrong due we always have one pointer-size allocated in TLS.
shouldn't be the required fix as the following here?
- (ULONG_PTR) _tls_start+1, (ULONG_PTR) _tls_end,
+
Hi Kai,
On Tue, Feb 19, 2013 at 7:27 PM, Kai Tietz ktiet...@googlemail.com wrote:
- (ULONG_PTR) _tls_start+1, (ULONG_PTR) _tls_end,
+ (ULONG_PTR) _tls_start, (ULONG_PTR) _tls_end,
looks to me wrong due we always have one pointer-size allocated in TLS.
shouldn't be the required fix as the
