On 11/07/12 21:27, Erik van Pienbroek wrote:
> Erik van Pienbroek schreef op zo 28-10-2012 om 00:01 [+0200]:
>> I could try to write a
>> script which tries to mass rebuild all these packages against recent
>> mingw-w64 snapshots and report any breakage automatically
> Hi,
>
> In the last couple of
On 11/7/12, Erik van Pienbroek wrote:
> Erik van Pienbroek schreef op zo 28-10-2012 om 00:01 [+0200]:
>> I could try to write a
>> script which tries to mass rebuild all these packages against recent
>> mingw-w64 snapshots and report any breakage automatically
>
> Hi,
>
> In the last couple of day
Erik van Pienbroek schreef op zo 28-10-2012 om 00:01 [+0200]:
> I could try to write a
> script which tries to mass rebuild all these packages against recent
> mingw-w64 snapshots and report any breakage automatically
Hi,
In the last couple of days I've been working on a mass rebuild script
which
On 11/6/2012 16:57, JonY wrote:
>
> Actually, according to
> http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/28d5ce15%28v=vs.80%29.aspx
>
> In Visual C++ 2005, vswprintf conforms to the ISO C Standard, which
> requires the second parameter, count, of type size_t. To force the old
> nonstandard behavior,
On 11/5/2012 21:31, Ruben Van Boxem wrote:
> 2012/11/5 JonY
>
>> On 11/5/2012 21:16, Ruben Van Boxem wrote:
>>> 2012/11/5 JonY
>>>
On 11/5/2012 20:44, Ozkan Sezer wrote:
>
> If older gcc (I guess 4.6 is common as the old gcc) is OK with it, then
> please go ahead.
When
2012/11/5 JonY
> On 11/5/2012 21:16, Ruben Van Boxem wrote:
> > 2012/11/5 JonY
> >
> >> On 11/5/2012 20:44, Ozkan Sezer wrote:
> >>>
> >>> If older gcc (I guess 4.6 is common as the old gcc) is OK with it, then
> >>> please go ahead.
> >>
> >> When you put it that way, it suddenly hit me that th
On 11/5/2012 21:16, Ruben Van Boxem wrote:
> 2012/11/5 JonY
>
>> On 11/5/2012 20:44, Ozkan Sezer wrote:
>>>
>>> If older gcc (I guess 4.6 is common as the old gcc) is OK with it, then
>>> please go ahead.
>>
>> When you put it that way, it suddenly hit me that the vfwsprintf will
>> not really wo
2012/11/5 JonY
> On 11/5/2012 20:44, Ozkan Sezer wrote:
> >
> > If older gcc (I guess 4.6 is common as the old gcc) is OK with it, then
> > please go ahead.
>
> When you put it that way, it suddenly hit me that the vfwsprintf will
> not really work if the user set -std=c++11 without including any
On 11/5/2012 20:44, Ozkan Sezer wrote:
>
> If older gcc (I guess 4.6 is common as the old gcc) is OK with it, then
> please go ahead.
When you put it that way, it suddenly hit me that the vfwsprintf will
not really work if the user set -std=c++11 without including any C++
headers first. Such as w
On 11/5/12, JonY wrote:
> On 10/29/2012 01:30, Kai Tietz wrote:
>> JonY,
>>
>> please sent patch upstream to gcc's and libstdc++'s ML. Add me CC and
>> please mention that I ok'ed patch on IRC. I won't be able to reply
>> next week myself.
>>
>> Cheers,
>> Kai
>>
>
> OK, it's in, but I forgot to
On 10/29/2012 01:30, Kai Tietz wrote:
> JonY,
>
> please sent patch upstream to gcc's and libstdc++'s ML. Add me CC and
> please mention that I ok'ed patch on IRC. I won't be able to reply
> next week myself.
>
> Cheers,
> Kai
>
OK, it's in, but I forgot to announce it.
To use std::to_string
On Sat, Oct 27, 2012 at 11:49 AM, Erik van Pienbroek
wrote:
> To sum it up I would like to propose the following:
> * Publish unstable releases (from the trunk branch) periodically
> (this can be time based)
Are you volunteering for this? Right now, we only have one release
manager. We're a s
JonY,
please sent patch upstream to gcc's and libstdc++'s ML. Add me CC and
please mention that I ok'ed patch on IRC. I won't be able to reply
next week myself.
Cheers,
Kai
2012/10/28 JonY :
> On 10/28/2012 21:16, Kai Tietz wrote:
>> 2012/10/28 Erik van Pienbroek :
>>> JonY schreef op zo 28-10
On 10/28/2012 21:16, Kai Tietz wrote:
> 2012/10/28 Erik van Pienbroek :
>> JonY schreef op zo 28-10-2012 om 19:08 [+0800]:
>>> On 10/28/2012 18:33, Erik van Pienbroek wrote:
JonY schreef op zo 28-10-2012 om 10:42 [+0800]:
> Does that include several large C++ programs? I need to test a pat
2012/10/28 Erik van Pienbroek :
> JonY schreef op zo 28-10-2012 om 19:08 [+0800]:
>> On 10/28/2012 18:33, Erik van Pienbroek wrote:
>> > JonY schreef op zo 28-10-2012 om 10:42 [+0800]:
>> >> Does that include several large C++ programs? I need to test a patch for
>> >> trunk headers.
>> >>
>> >> If
JonY schreef op zo 28-10-2012 om 19:08 [+0800]:
> On 10/28/2012 18:33, Erik van Pienbroek wrote:
> > JonY schreef op zo 28-10-2012 om 10:42 [+0800]:
> >> Does that include several large C++ programs? I need to test a patch for
> >> trunk headers.
> >>
> >> If so, I can push in the less invasive cha
On 10/28/2012 18:33, Erik van Pienbroek wrote:
> JonY schreef op zo 28-10-2012 om 10:42 [+0800]:
>> Does that include several large C++ programs? I need to test a patch for
>> trunk headers.
>>
>> If so, I can push in the less invasive change and hopefully it should
>> not affect any builds.
>
> Y
JonY schreef op zo 28-10-2012 om 10:42 [+0800]:
> Does that include several large C++ programs? I need to test a patch for
> trunk headers.
>
> If so, I can push in the less invasive change and hopefully it should
> not affect any builds.
Yes, we also provide various large C++ libraries, like for
On 10/28/2012 06:01, Erik van Pienbroek wrote:
> Jacek Caban schreef op do 25-10-2012 om 14:51 [+0200]:
>> A few more words about ensuring stability: We mostly know what risky
>> changes have been made and we occasionally hear back from users when
>> something breaks. I myself would know quickly if
Jacek Caban schreef op do 25-10-2012 om 14:51 [+0200]:
> A few more words about ensuring stability: We mostly know what risky
> changes have been made and we occasionally hear back from users when
> something breaks. I myself would know quickly if something really bad
> happened. I do Mozilla code
Kai Tietz schreef op wo 24-10-2012 om 21:19 [+0200]:
> Hello everybody,
>
> I want to raise this discussion on public mailing-list, as mingw-w64's
> release-cycle might be also of interest to some of our users. Right
> now we do the major-release by gut feeling with a background plan
> about feat
> So I would like to get your opinion. You might have complete
> different opinion about planning mingw-w64's release-cycles, so don't
> hesitate to tell us what you think about this subject.
First, thanks for keeping the discussion open. It has been informative so far.
Second, as a consumer of
On 10/25/2012 17:17, JonY wrote:
> On 10/25/2012 15:04, Ruben Van Boxem wrote:
>> Currently, trunk has several new features, some of which have matured quite
>> a while ago (I'm looking at you, large file support for C streams). It also
>> has some more WIP stuff.
>>
>
> If any branching is going
On Thu, Oct 25, 2012 at 8:51 AM, Jacek Caban wrote:
> On 10/24/12 21:19, Kai Tietz wrote:
>> So I would like to get your opinion. You might have complete
>> different opinion about planning mingw-w64's release-cycles, so don't
>> hesitate to tell us what you think about this subject.
>
> I've nev
On 10/24/12 21:19, Kai Tietz wrote:
> So I would like to get your opinion. You might have complete
> different opinion about planning mingw-w64's release-cycles, so don't
> hesitate to tell us what you think about this subject.
Current release-cycles strategy works fine for me, but now that you
m
On Thu, Oct 25, 2012 at 3:04 AM, Ruben Van Boxem
wrote:
> 2012/10/24 Kai Tietz
>>
>> Hello everybody,
>>
>> I want to raise this discussion on public mailing-list, as mingw-w64's
>> release-cycle might be also of interest to some of our users. Right
>> now we do the major-release by gut feeling
On 10/25/2012 15:04, Ruben Van Boxem wrote:
> 2012/10/24 Kai Tietz
>
>> Hello everybody,
>>
>> I want to raise this discussion on public mailing-list, as mingw-w64's
>> release-cycle might be also of interest to some of our users. Right
>> now we do the major-release by gut feeling with a backgr
2012/10/24 Kai Tietz
> Hello everybody,
>
> I want to raise this discussion on public mailing-list, as mingw-w64's
> release-cycle might be also of interest to some of our users. Right
> now we do the major-release by gut feeling with a background plan
> about features new version shall include.
Hello Kai!
On Wed, Oct 24, 2012 at 3:19 PM, Kai Tietz wrote:
> Hello everybody,
>
> I want to raise this discussion on public mailing-list, as mingw-w64's
> release-cycle might be also of interest to some of our users. Right
> now we do the major-release by gut feeling with a background plan
> a
On Wed, Oct 24, 2012 at 3:19 PM, Kai Tietz wrote:
> Hello everybody,
>
> I want to raise this discussion on public mailing-list, as mingw-w64's
> release-cycle might be also of interest to some of our users. Right
> now we do the major-release by gut feeling with a background plan
> about feature
Hello everybody,
I want to raise this discussion on public mailing-list, as mingw-w64's
release-cycle might be also of interest to some of our users. Right
now we do the major-release by gut feeling with a background plan
about features new version shall include. Now I got the request to
do maj
31 matches
Mail list logo
