Christian Werner wrote:
> Pedro Alves wrote:
>
>> I've built a cc1.exe with the attached patch applied, and I now get the
>> same alignments as the OP reported MSVC choses. I'm doing a full
>> gcc build now.
>>
>> The patch also forces 64-bit alignment on doubles, but I haven't
>> tested it yet -
Jack Jansen wrote:
> On 15-nov-2007, at 12:00, Jack Jansen wrote:
>> I'm not near the machine right now, but I wouldn't be surprised if a
>> simple
>> printf("%lld %d %lld", (long long)42, 43, 44);
>> shows the problem.
>
> Make that
> printf("%lld %d %lld", (long long)42, 43, (long long)
bitrary numbers (always increasing), starting from
1, for example, and adding 1 for each "patch", but ... a better idea is to
take the "date" of the patch commitment ("patchlevel = YearMonthDay"):
#define patchlevel 20071117
This way one can guarantee that this
Jacek M. Holeczek wrote:
> Hi,
>
>> #define __MINGW32_VERSION 3.11
>> #define __MINGW32_MAJOR_VERSION 3
>> #define __MINGW32_MINOR_VERSION 11
>> (...)
>> #define __W32API_VERSION 3.8
>> #define __W32API_MAJOR_VERSION 3
>> #define __W32API_MINOR_VERSION 8
>
> Well, how often do you cha
