Marc Glisse writes:
> On Sat, 6 Jun 2020, Mihai Preda wrote:
>
>> I would rather suggest to support intmax_t and uintmax_t.
>
> That's one possibility for C (and C++, although it is a bit more
> painful there), but not one that everyone agrees with. I think the
> majority in standard committees
On Mon, 8 Jun 2020, Vincent Lefevre wrote:
Couldn't the C interface *optionally* support more than C89?
I think the policy has been to have one uniform interface, and requiring
C99 for GMP is likely to happen. I am generally in favor of optional
support for __int128, which wouldn't be
On 2020-06-08 22:32:25 +0200, Marc Glisse wrote:
> On Sat, 6 Jun 2020, Mihai Preda wrote:
>
> > At this point the C++ compiler on windows (where long is 32-bit)
> > reports errors, see at the end. The problem is that the set of
> > constructors does not include one taking a 64-bit integer:
>
>
On Sat, 6 Jun 2020, Mihai Preda wrote:
At this point the C++ compiler on windows (where long is 32-bit)
reports errors, see at the end. The problem is that the set of
constructors does not include one taking a 64-bit integer:
The issue is that:
1) the C++ interface follows the C interface
2)
On Sat, 30 May 2020, tsurzin wrote:
This change worked to build test and run a version of GMP-6.2.0 for my PC.
[handle *-*-msys exactly the same as *-*-mingw* in configure.ac]
The PC is running Msys2 under Windows 10 and without change GMP failed
to build.
configfsf.guess does mention a
