Hello,
On Mon, 27 Dec 2010 18:30:01 +0200
Paul Sokolovsky wrote:
[]
> > >
> > > $ grep -r -n _WIN32_WCE --exclude-dir=.svn w32api/include/ | wc -l
> > > 174
> > >
> > > As w32api defines _WIN32_WCE first thing and already uses it in
> > > 99% cases, maybe it should use it exclusively?
> >
> >
Hello,
On Mon, 27 Dec 2010 20:55:49 +0200
Paul Sokolovsky wrote:
[]
> Everyone's mileage will vary, though. I'm not interested in
> upstreaming (I know all this mumbo-jumbo oh so well), so mingw's
> specific mileage won't hurt me much. That said, I hereby confirm that
> I know of such issues and
Hello,
On Mon, 27 Dec 2010 18:26:53 +
Pedro Alves wrote:
> On Monday 27 December 2010 18:19:59, Paul Sokolovsky wrote:
> > Btw, while looking at vendor source may be considered questionable
> > practice, because vendor source access is granted by a license which
> > itself, and its licensing
On Monday 27 December 2010 18:19:59, Paul Sokolovsky wrote:
> Btw, while looking at vendor source may be considered questionable
> practice, because vendor source access is granted by a license which
> itself, and its licensing process (like changes evolution), don't
> receive enough 3rd-party revi
Hello,
On Mon, 27 Dec 2010 18:16:48 +0100 (CET)
Vincent Torri wrote:
>
> Hey,
>
> On Mon, 27 Dec 2010, Paul Sokolovsky wrote:
>
> > https://github.com/pfalcon/cegcc-w32api-try1/commit/be2a26d09e971f81dee8b4787e30ab06d9707eff
>
> shouldn't the critical section be removed if (L)GPL code is not
Hey,
On Mon, 27 Dec 2010, Paul Sokolovsky wrote:
> https://github.com/pfalcon/cegcc-w32api-try1/commit/be2a26d09e971f81dee8b4787e30ab06d9707eff
shouldn't the critical section be removed if (L)GPL code is not allowed
instead of replacing UNDER_CE by WIN32_WCE (first change) ?
Vincent Torri
--
Hello,
On Mon, 27 Dec 2010 14:32:54 +
Pedro Alves wrote:
> On Saturday 25 December 2010 14:14:10, Paul Sokolovsky wrote:
> > On Sat, 25 Dec 2010 12:46:08 +
> > Pedro Alves wrote:
> >
> > > On Friday 24 December 2010 22:22:56, Paul Sokolovsky wrote:
> > > > Hello,
> > > >
> > > > Anyon
On Saturday 25 December 2010 14:14:10, Paul Sokolovsky wrote:
> On Sat, 25 Dec 2010 12:46:08 +
> Pedro Alves wrote:
>
> > On Friday 24 December 2010 22:22:56, Paul Sokolovsky wrote:
> > > Hello,
> > >
> > > Anyone can explain me meanings and differences between _WIN32_CE &
> > > UNDER_CE ? U
Hello,
On Sat, 25 Dec 2010 12:46:08 +
Pedro Alves wrote:
> On Friday 24 December 2010 22:22:56, Paul Sokolovsky wrote:
> > Hello,
> >
> > Anyone can explain me meanings and differences between _WIN32_CE &
> > UNDER_CE ? UNDER_CE is not defined by CeGCC, while used for some
> > #ifdefs. I'm
On Friday 24 December 2010 22:22:56, Paul Sokolovsky wrote:
> Hello,
>
> Anyone can explain me meanings and differences between _WIN32_CE &
> UNDER_CE ? UNDER_CE is not defined by CeGCC, while used for some
> #ifdefs. I'm going to replace these with _WIN32_CE in my clean up work
> so far.
Would b
On Friday 24 December 2010 22:22:56, Paul Sokolovsky wrote:
> Hello,
>
> Anyone can explain me meanings and differences between _WIN32_CE &
> UNDER_CE ? UNDER_CE is not defined by CeGCC, while used for some
> #ifdefs. I'm going to replace these with _WIN32_CE in my clean up work
> so far.
Would b
11 matches
Mail list logo
