> -----Original Message----- > From: Martin Sebor [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Martin Sebor > Sent: Wednesday, June 25, 2008 7:07 AM > To: dev@stdcxx.apache.org > Subject: Re: Patch for MinGW > > Hmm. So the differences are: > > MinGW _CRITICAL_SECTION InterlockedXxx (long*) > Windows _RTL_CRITICAL_SECTION InterlockedXxx (volatile long*) > > I would be inclined to hardcode the name of the critical > section type. I'm less sure about the InterlockedXxx > argument. I wouldn't be surprised if MinGW followed in > Windows footsteps at some point in the future.
If the MinGW maintainers will do that, they could rename _CRITICAL_SECTION as well. :) > Have you tried to find out from the maintainers of the project? I've found that they're fixed InterlockedXXX() argument issue in CVS recently: http://sourceforge.net/tracker/index.php?func=detail&aid=1996620&group_i d=2435&atid=102435 So we should recover ATOMIC_OPS.cpp test to support old and new releases of the MinGW. Farid.
