Danny Backx wrote:
> On Sat, 2007-06-09 at 15:08 +0100, Pedro Alves wrote:
> > > Pedro, the version number on these things is not something we've argued
> > > about. Any objection to just copying the stuff currently on my personal
> > > site to SF ?
> > >
> >
> > No, of course not. I thought they
On Sat, 2007-06-09 at 15:08 +0100, Pedro Alves wrote:
> > Pedro, the version number on these things is not something we've argued
> > about. Any objection to just copying the stuff currently on my personal
> > site to SF ?
> >
>
> No, of course not. I thought they where at SF already :)
No, bec
(Please guys, don't top post.)
Just a follow up. I noticed that if i pass a
>>> value
by reference in the time(), the number of seconds
>>> gets
correctly saved in it.
Should be fixed in svn as of revision 932.
Cheers,
Pedro Alves
--
Danny Backx escreveu:
> On Thu, 2007-06-07 at 16:58 -0700, stan lee wrote:
>> Sorry i forgot to mention i was building for
>> mingw32ce. I was also wondering about the filesize.
>> Why do i get a 1MB binary?
>
Probably a lot of debug info there. Did you try stripping the
binary? Debug info is
On Thu, 2007-06-07 at 16:58 -0700, stan lee wrote:
> Sorry i forgot to mention i was building for
> mingw32ce. I was also wondering about the filesize.
> Why do i get a 1MB binary?
Because cegcc comes with more DLLs than mingw32ce. (Edited output of a
find command below.)
543232 Jun 7 21:58 /op
Hi Danny,
Sorry i forgot to mention i was building for
mingw32ce. I was also wondering about the filesize.
Why do i get a 1MB binary? I am using
cegcc-mingw32ce-0.14-1.i586.rpm which I got from your
site (the one in sourceforge is outdated and I couldnt
properly build cegcc from source).
Cheers
You fail to mention which compiler you use.
The source below works fine for me without change with arm-wince-cegcc-g
++, but fails (always displays 0) when using arm-wince-mingw32ce-g++ .
Also in the latter case, the executable is 1MB. The cegcc executable is
only 55K.
Danny
On Wed, 200
Hi,
Just a follow up. I noticed that if i pass a value
by reference in the time(), the number of seconds gets
correctly saved in it.
Cheers,
Stan
--- stan lee <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Is the time function still incomplete? The value I
> always get is zero even though the system
