2010/8/17 Pete Batard pbat...@gmail.com:
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
On Tue, Aug 17, 2010 at 2:24 PM, Kai Tietz ktiet...@googlemail.com wrote:
2010/8/17 Pete Batard pbat...@gmail.com:
For 32 bit, the current MinGW-w64 winbase has:
LONG InterlockedIncrement(LONG volatile *lpAddend);
LONG InterlockedDecrement(LONG volatile *lpAddend);
LONG
2010/8/17 Ozkan Sezer seze...@gmail.com:
On Tue, Aug 17, 2010 at 2:24 PM, Kai Tietz ktiet...@googlemail.com wrote:
2010/8/17 Pete Batard pbat...@gmail.com:
For 32 bit, the current MinGW-w64 winbase has:
LONG InterlockedIncrement(LONG volatile *lpAddend);
LONG InterlockedDecrement(LONG
On Tue, Aug 17, 2010 at 2:34 PM, Kai Tietz ktiet...@googlemail.com wrote:
2010/8/17 Ozkan Sezer seze...@gmail.com:
On Tue, Aug 17, 2010 at 2:24 PM, Kai Tietz ktiet...@googlemail.com wrote:
2010/8/17 Pete Batard pbat...@gmail.com:
For 32 bit, the current MinGW-w64 winbase has:
LONG
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
2010/8/17 Ozkan Sezer seze...@gmail.com:
On Tue, Aug 17, 2010 at 2:44 PM, Kai Tietz ktiet...@googlemail.com wrote:
2010/8/17 Pete Batard pbat...@gmail.com:
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,
On Tue, Aug 17, 2010 at 2:52 PM, Kai Tietz ktiet...@googlemail.com wrote:
2010/8/17 Ozkan Sezer seze...@gmail.com:
On Tue, Aug 17, 2010 at 2:44 PM, Kai Tietz ktiet...@googlemail.com wrote:
2010/8/17 Pete Batard pbat...@gmail.com:
On 2010.08.17 12:29, Ozkan Sezer wrote:
Thank you Pete for
2010/8/17 Kai Tietz ktiet...@googlemail.com:
2010/8/17 Ozkan Sezer seze...@gmail.com:
On Tue, Aug 17, 2010 at 2:44 PM, Kai Tietz ktiet...@googlemail.com wrote:
2010/8/17 Pete Batard pbat...@gmail.com:
On 2010.08.17 12:29, Ozkan Sezer wrote:
Thank you Pete for noticing that. We are aware of
2010/8/17 Ozkan Sezer seze...@gmail.com:
On Tue, Aug 17, 2010 at 2:52 PM, Kai Tietz ktiet...@googlemail.com wrote:
2010/8/17 Ozkan Sezer seze...@gmail.com:
On Tue, Aug 17, 2010 at 2:44 PM, Kai Tietz ktiet...@googlemail.com wrote:
2010/8/17 Pete Batard pbat...@gmail.com:
On 2010.08.17 12:29,
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
2010/8/17 Pete Batard pbat...@gmail.com:
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
On Tue, Aug 17, 2010 at 3:50 PM, Kai Tietz ktiet...@googlemail.com wrote:
2010/8/17 Pete Batard pbat...@gmail.com:
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
2010/8/17 Ozkan Sezer seze...@gmail.com:
On Tue, Aug 17, 2010 at 3:50 PM, Kai Tietz ktiet...@googlemail.com wrote:
2010/8/17 Pete Batard pbat...@gmail.com:
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
2010/8/17 Ozkan Sezer seze...@gmail.com:
On Tue, Aug 17, 2010 at 4:08 PM, Kai Tietz ktiet...@googlemail.com wrote:
2010/8/17 Ozkan Sezer seze...@gmail.com:
On Tue, Aug 17, 2010 at 3:50 PM, Kai Tietz ktiet...@googlemail.com wrote:
2010/8/17 Pete Batard pbat...@gmail.com:
On 2010.08.17 12:55,
14 matches
Mail list logo
