[Mingw-w64-public] discrepancy between MinGW32 and MinGW-w64 winbase.h (Interlocked API)

2010-08-17 Thread Pete Batard
For 32 bit, the current MinGW-w64 winbase has: LONG InterlockedIncrement(LONG volatile *lpAddend); LONG InterlockedDecrement(LONG volatile *lpAddend); LONG InterlockedExchange(LONG volatile *Target,LONG Value); However, MinGW32 uses: LONG WINAPI InterlockedDecrement(LONG volatile

Re: [Mingw-w64-public] discrepancy between MinGW32 and MinGW-w64 winbase.h (Interlocked API)

2010-08-17 Thread Pete Batard
On 2010.08.17 12:29, Ozkan Sezer wrote: Thank you Pete for noticing that. We are aware of this and we solved things here a bit different, but AFAIR, they aren't specifically marked as WINAPI in ms headers (well, maybe their mistake?..) Well, the thing is that the MSDN documentation has

Re: [Mingw-w64-public] discrepancy between MinGW32 and MinGW-w64 winbase.h (Interlocked API)

2010-08-17 Thread Pete Batard
On 2010.08.17 12:55, Kai Tietz wrote: Pete, could you provide us a list of the Interlock* API, which has stdcall calling convention by our findings? Please just list names of those functions and don't copy from VC's header-set. So we can adjust things for win32 more easily without violating

Re: [Mingw-w64-public] Is MinGW-w64 multilib considered stable?

2010-08-18 Thread Pete Batard
Thanks for the replies. On 2010.08.18 22:17, Dmitrijs Ledkovs wrote: I'm not entirely sure that it works for ada, fortran, boehm/java. I presume it is far more safe for C, since multilib support within gcc starts with that. Yeah. Forgot to mention that our project was C only. Please also

Re: [Mingw-w64-public] Is MinGW-w64 multilib considered stable?

2010-08-18 Thread Pete Batard
On 2010.08.19 00:37, NightStrike wrote: Do you have a good testsuite for your project? I wouldn't say so. The aim of the project is to provide generic user level access with any USB device, so that's very far reaching, and while we attempt to test with as many devices as we can, this testing