From ed477454b564a0d3a4cd1a0af0249fc575b741c5 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: Biswapriyo Nath
Date: Wed, 5 May 2021 10:37:11 +0530
Subject: [PATCH] headers: Import wuapi.idl from wine.
Signed-off-by: Biswapriyo Nath
---
mingw-w64-headers/Makefile.am| 1 +
mingw-w64-headers/wine-import.sh |
On Tue, 4 May 2021, Liu Hao wrote:
在 5/4/21 2:48 AM, Martin Storsjö 写道:
Sure. However in practice, with e.g. code like this:
typedef void (*fp)(void);
_Atomic fp ptr1 = ((void(*)(void))0);
_Atomic fp ptr2 = ((void*)0);
Clang accepts ptr1 but errors out on ptr2:
On Tue, 4 May 2021, Liu Hao wrote:
在 2021-05-04 18:03, Christian Franke 写道:
Next try attached.
Thanks. This patch looks good to me. I may push this one if others don't have
objections on it.
That patch seems to work for me, thanks!
// Martin
在 2021-05-04 18:03, Christian Franke 写道:
Next try attached.
Thanks. This patch looks good to me. I may push this one if others don't have
objections on it.
If the '__atomic*()' are not used, gcc 10.2.0 -O2 generates the same code. '__ATOMIC_SEQ_CST' would
make a difference: the store is
在 2021-05-04 22:46, Carl Kleffner 写道:
I can't reproduce this behaviour. With gcc-10.3 on msys2/ucrt64 as well
as
msy2/mingw64 I get consistent results, regardless if I link CRT_fp10.o,
CRT_fp8.o or none of them.
Does it have something to do with
I can't reproduce this behaviour. With gcc-10.3 on msys2/ucrt64 as well as
msy2/mingw64 I get consistent results, regardless if I link CRT_fp10.o,
CRT_fp8.o or none of them.
Cheers
Carl
Am Di., 4. Mai 2021 um 14:52 Uhr schrieb Benjamin Bihler <
benjamin.bih...@compositence.de>:
> Hello,
>
> I
Hello,
I have linked my application against CRT_fp8.o for several years to have the
same floating-point operations precision on all threads. This does not work
anymore as expected with gcc 10.3. A detailed description is here:
Liu Hao wrote:
在 5/4/21 2:48 AM, Martin Storsjö 写道:
...
In practice it shouldn't really matter, because as Jacek points out,
we should be able to do without the atomics just fine in practice here.
Yes, see below.
I think I have to disagree on this. Just because something works 'in
