Re: [Mingw-w64-public] glibc isinf() behaviour

Hi, On Mon, May 23, 2016, Nakai Yuta wrote: > Hi, all > I attached the patch. > > I put ifdef guard for compatibility with MSVC. > > default behaviour: same as MSVC > when defined _GNU_SOURCE: same as glibc(>2.01) This is tangential. I'm actually a bit worried about such changes in the

[Mingw-w64-public] Restore deleted VirtualFree declaration

Restore deleted VirtualFree declaration Without VirtualFree declaration I can't compile mingw-w64/gcc toolchain on Ubuntu. Please review. diff --git a/mingw-w64-headers/include/memoryapi.h b/mingw-w64-headers/include/memoryapi.h index 46e18c4..19aeae4 100755 ---

Re: [Mingw-w64-public] glibc isinf() behaviour

Hi, patch is ok. Please apply. Thanks, Kai 2016-05-23 17:46 GMT+02:00 Nakai Yuta : >>have you missed to attach the patch? I don't see it. > hmm... > Is this OK? > > > > 差出人: Kai Tietz > 送信日時: 2016年5月24日 00:38

Re: [Mingw-w64-public] glibc isinf() behaviour

>have you missed to attach the patch? I don't see it. hmm... Is this OK? 差出人: Kai Tietz 送信日時: 2016年5月24日 00:38 宛先: mingw-w64-public@lists.sourceforge.net 件名: Re: [Mingw-w64-public] glibc isinf() behaviour Hi, have you missed

Re: [Mingw-w64-public] glibc isinf() behaviour

Hi, have you missed to attach the patch? I don't see it. Regards, Kai 2016-05-23 16:08 GMT+02:00 Nakai Yuta : > Hi, all > I attached the patch. > > I put ifdef guard for compatibility with MSVC. > > default behaviour: same as MSVC > when defined _GNU_SOURCE: same as

Re: [Mingw-w64-public] glibc isinf() behaviour

Hi, all I attached the patch. I put ifdef guard for compatibility with MSVC. default behaviour: same as MSVC when defined _GNU_SOURCE: same as glibc(>2.01) Yuta 差出人: Kuldeep Singh Dhaka 送信日時: 2016年5月23日 18:50 宛先:

[Mingw-w64-public] glibc isinf() behaviour

`man isinf` >In glibc 2.01 and earlier, isinf() returns a nonzero value > (actually: 1) if x is positive infinity or negative infinity. > (This is all that C99 requires.)" whereas: C: return non-zero values for infinite values (be it +Infinity or -Infinity) Can we have similar behaviour for