I've created a tarball with a release candiate of stdcxx 4.2.1.
Tarball location:
http://people.apache.org/~sebor/stdcxx-4.2.1-rc-3/stdcxx-4.2.1.tar.gz
MD5 sum for the tarball:
http://people.apache.org/~sebor/stdcxx-4.2.1-rc-3/stdcxx-4.2.1.tar.gz.md5
Jira Release Notes:
http://tinyurl.com/5ayny
Martin Sebor wrote:
FYI: I've created the 4.3.x branch for your hacking pleasure. As
the name implies, the branch is for changes that are backward but
not necessarily forward compatible with 4.2.x. Binary or source
incompatible changes should go on trunk only.
To clarify: forward-compatible cha
FYI: I've created the 4.3.x branch for your hacking pleasure. As
the name implies, the branch is for changes that are backward but
not necessarily forward compatible with 4.2.x. Binary or source
incompatible changes should go on trunk only.
Martin
Farid Zaripov wrote:
The sizeof (CRITICAL_SECTION) equal to 24 on _WIN32 and 40 on _WIN64.
But in rw/_mutex.h now used the hardcoded value equal to 24. This is
not causes any problems because we #define _RWSTD_NO_FWD_DECLARATIONS
in rw/_config_msvcrt.h for _WIN64. I have tried to comment the
#d
Travis Vitek wrote:
I've run a quick diff of the code on trunk and 4.2.x (include,src,tests)
to be sure that everything that should have been merged over has been
merged. Here is what I've found...
Thanks! This is very helpful.
Changes on 4.2.x, but not on trunk
http://svn.apache.org/view
I've run a quick diff of the code on trunk and 4.2.x (include,src,tests)
to be sure that everything that should have been merged over has been
merged. Here is what I've found...
Changes on 4.2.x, but not on trunk
http://svn.apache.org/viewvc?view=rev&revision=650742
http://svn.apache.org/vie
Travis Vitek wrote:
Martin Sebor wrote:
Okay, so are we all comfortable with this? Or does anyone
want to argue to have this change reverted from 4.2.1?
Yes, it seems fine.
If there are no objections I will go ahead and create
a release candidate tarball and get the vote rolling
sometime
Martin Sebor wrote:
>
>Okay, so are we all comfortable with this? Or does anyone
>want to argue to have this change reverted from 4.2.1?
>
Yes, it seems fine.
>
>If there are no objections I will go ahead and create
>a release candidate tarball and get the vote rolling
>sometime later today.
Okay, so are we all comfortable with this? Or does anyone
want to argue to have this change reverted from 4.2.1?
If there are no objections I will go ahead and create
a release candidate tarball and get the vote rolling
sometime later today.
Martin
Farid Zaripov wrote:
-Original Message---
> -Original Message-
> From: Martin Sebor [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Thursday, April 24, 2008 6:02 PM
> To: dev@stdcxx.apache.org
> Subject: Re: svn commit: r650902 - /stdcxx/trunk/src/num_put.cpp
>
> So let me try to summarize the new behavior:
>
> Solaris Wind
The sizeof (CRITICAL_SECTION) equal to 24 on _WIN32 and 40 on _WIN64.
But in rw/_mutex.h now used the hardcoded value equal to 24. This is
not causes any problems because we #define _RWSTD_NO_FWD_DECLARATIONS
in rw/_config_msvcrt.h for _WIN64. I have tried to comment the
#define _RWSTD_NO_FWD_DEC
Farid Zaripov wrote:
-Original Message-
From: Martin Sebor [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Martin Sebor
Sent: Thursday, April 24, 2008 8:53 AM
To: dev@stdcxx.apache.org
Subject: Re: svn commit: r650902 - /stdcxx/trunk/src/num_put.cpp
I guess I don't understand why the float overlo
> -Original Message-
> From: Martin Sebor [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Martin Sebor
> Sent: Thursday, April 24, 2008 8:53 AM
> To: dev@stdcxx.apache.org
> Subject: Re: svn commit: r650902 - /stdcxx/trunk/src/num_put.cpp
>
> I guess I don't understand why the float overloads are a
13 matches
Mail list logo
