This is the mail archive of the
binutils@sourceware.org
mailing list for the binutils project.
Re: [patch bfd]: Add further support for x86_64 mingw
- From: NightStrike <nightstrike at gmail dot com>
- To: "H.J. Lu" <hjl dot tools at gmail dot com>
- Cc: "Nick Clifton" <nickc at redhat dot com>, "Kai Tietz" <Kai dot Tietz at onevision dot com>, "Brian Dessent" <brian at dessent dot net>, Binutils <binutils at sourceware dot org>, ktietz70 at googlemail dot com
- Date: Sat, 2 Feb 2008 11:52:57 -0500
- Subject: Re: [patch bfd]: Add further support for x86_64 mingw
- References: <OFD44C141F.CC8314BC-ONC12573D8.00594C37-C12573D8.00596882@onevision.de> <479A0C7D.9040809@redhat.com> <6dc9ffc80802020827t682627f3n7fae4805553db56b@mail.gmail.com>
On 2/2/08, H.J. Lu <hjl.tools@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Jan 25, 2008 8:21 AM, Nick Clifton <nickc@redhat.com> wrote:
> > Hi Kai,
> >
> > > I attached the updated patch files.
> >
> > Approved and applied.
> >
> > I think that in the long run it would be better to move these print format
> > strings into a header but for now the patch is OK.
> >
> > Cheers
> > Nick
> >
> >
> >
>
> FYI, those x86_64 mingw patches have broken 32bit mingw host for 64bit
> target: when compiling
> with gcc 4.1:
>
> http://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=5715
>
>
> H.J.
I think that the problem was always there to begin with, and Kai's
patch just exposed it and stopped it from being compiled silently. In
this case, Win32 mingw may be wrong.