[Mingw-w64-public] unimplemented function libstdc++-6.dll._ZNSt8ios_base4InitC1Ev

Hello list, Since the update to gcc 6.1 in archlinux , running a 32-bits mingw-w64 executable using iostream fails in wine with the message "unimplemented function libstdc++-6.dll._ZNSt8ios_base4InitC1Ev" (std::ios_base::Init::Init()) #include int main() { std::cout << "Mo: " << 8.6 <<

Re: [Mingw-w64-public] The compiler seems it can't recognize "%lld" and warns.

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA256 On 23.05.2016 12:52, 성이름 wrote: > Hi. I always appreciate your contribution. > > I use mingw-w64 5.3.0. > > In the case of: printf("%lld", longlongint); > > The compiler says: warning: unknown conversion type character 'l' in > format

[Mingw-w64-public] The compiler seems it can't recognize "%lld" and warns.

Hi. I always appreciate your contribution. I use mingw-w64 5.3.0. In the case of: printf("%lld", longlongint); The compiler says: warning: unknown conversion type character 'l' in format [-Wformat=]| warning: too many arguments for format [-Wformat-extra-args]| But there's not a problem in the

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

2016-05-24 7:46 GMT+02:00 Adrien Nader : > 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

Re: [Mingw-w64-public] [PATCH] headers: Fix VirtualFree declaration scope

I've compiled GCC with this patch and everything is OK. Thanks! W dniu 2016-05-24 o 11:24, Hugo Beauzée-Luyssen pisze: > It is available on desktop apps since XP, and on store apps since > Windows 10 > --- > mingw-w64-headers/include/memoryapi.h | 5 - > 1 file changed, 4 insertions(+), 1

Re: [Mingw-w64-public] Restore deleted VirtualFree declaration

On 05/24/2016 12:44 PM, Kai Tietz wrote: > So, this thread is complete with ok in different thread, right? > > Regards, > Kai > > 2016-05-24 11:24 GMT+02:00 Hugo Beauzée-Luyssen : >> On 05/24/2016 11:19 AM, Hugo Beauzée-Luyssen wrote: >>> On 05/24/2016 06:56 AM, Mateusz wrote:

Re: [Mingw-w64-public] Restore deleted VirtualFree declaration

So, this thread is complete with ok in different thread, right? Regards, Kai 2016-05-24 11:24 GMT+02:00 Hugo Beauzée-Luyssen : > On 05/24/2016 11:19 AM, Hugo Beauzée-Luyssen wrote: >> On 05/24/2016 06:56 AM, Mateusz wrote: >>> Restore deleted VirtualFree declaration >>> >>>

Re: [Mingw-w64-public] [PATCH] headers: Fix VirtualFree declaration scope

Patch is ok. Thanks, Kai 2016-05-24 11:24 GMT+02:00 Hugo Beauzée-Luyssen : > It is available on desktop apps since XP, and on store apps since > Windows 10 > --- > mingw-w64-headers/include/memoryapi.h | 5 - > 1 file changed, 4 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-) > > diff --git

[Mingw-w64-public] [PATCH] headers: Fix VirtualFree declaration scope

It is available on desktop apps since XP, and on store apps since Windows 10 --- mingw-w64-headers/include/memoryapi.h | 5 - 1 file changed, 4 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-) diff --git a/mingw-w64-headers/include/memoryapi.h b/mingw-w64-headers/include/memoryapi.h index 46e18c4..0a2fbd7

Re: [Mingw-w64-public] Restore deleted VirtualFree declaration

On 05/24/2016 11:19 AM, Hugo Beauzée-Luyssen wrote: > On 05/24/2016 06:56 AM, Mateusz wrote: >> Restore deleted VirtualFree declaration >> >> Without VirtualFree declaration I can't compile mingw-w64/gcc >> toolchain on Ubuntu. >> >> Please review. >> >> >> >>

Re: [Mingw-w64-public] Restore deleted VirtualFree declaration

On 05/24/2016 06:56 AM, Mateusz wrote: Restore deleted VirtualFree declaration Without VirtualFree declaration I can't compile mingw-w64/gcc toolchain on Ubuntu. Please review. -- Mobile security can be enabling,

Re: [Mingw-w64-public] [PATCH 2/7] crt: Add e_pow.c to the source list

Sorry for false alarm. The problem is with [553c86] commit and deleted VirtualFree declaration. W dniu 2016-05-21 o 08:33, JonY pisze: > -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- > Hash: SHA256 > > On 5/21/2016 11:40, Mateusz wrote: >> Are you sure that this patch works without regenerate makefile? >>