On 30/07/2012 23:33, Jeffrey Lee wrote:
> On Mon, 30 Jul 2012, Ian Jeffray wrote:
>
>> Might be interesting to check if there's any noticeable (timeable)
>> performance difference between the gcc and vs2010 builds... I'd rather
>> hope the latter would be ahead.
>
> I'm not entirely sure if !SICK c
The arcem manual on the website is definitely out of date, and
has some errors. Since Jeffrey enabled HostFS for Win32 today,
I noticed the manual refers to the support module as
'arcemsupport,ffa' when it's actually just 'support,ffa'
Several chunks are also marked 'CVS' which needs fixing.
No
On 30/07/2012 23:33, Jeffrey Lee wrote:
> On Mon, 30 Jul 2012, Ian Jeffray wrote:
>
>> Might be interesting to check if there's any noticeable (timeable)
>> performance difference between the gcc and vs2010 builds... I'd rather
>> hope the latter would be ahead.
>
> I'm not entirely sure if !SICK c
On Mon, 30 Jul 2012, Ian Jeffray wrote:
Might be interesting to check if there's any noticeable (timeable)
performance difference between the gcc and vs2010 builds... I'd rather
hope the latter would be ahead.
I'm not entirely sure if !SICK can be trusted (the CPU speed it reports
seems to k
On 30/07/2012 22:41, Jeffrey Lee wrote:
> On Tue, 17 Jul 2012, Ian Jeffray wrote:
>
>> I've also started to get the Win32 build to actually build again,
>> using VS2010 (mostly just a little breakage in the fastmap stuff
>> to solve in a clean way).
>
> FWIW, the Win32 build (now that you've fixed
On Tue, 17 Jul 2012, Ian Jeffray wrote:
> I've also started to get the Win32 build to actually build again,
> using VS2010 (mostly just a little breakage in the fastmap stuff
> to solve in a clean way).
FWIW, the Win32 build (now that you've fixed all the C99-ness) builds OK
with the Express ed
