search for: compabil

...ing an MSVC compatible compiler be to the detriment of clang and > llvm? No one is trying to break mingw here, merely add support for something Just to make stuff clear: I just wanted proper naming which will be non-confusing. Right now we have: - isTargetWindows() which really means "msvc-compabile" - isTargetWin32() which means "everything on windows", so Windows + Mingw + Cygwin - isTargetWin64() is is basically 64-bit version of isTargetWin32(), but strictly speaking is slightly different This naming while being the historical artifact is extremely confusing. For me it s...

...ble compiler be to the detriment of clang and >> llvm? No one is trying to break mingw here, merely add support for something > Just to make stuff clear: I just wanted proper naming which will be > non-confusing. Right now we have: > - isTargetWindows() which really means "msvc-compabile" > - isTargetWin32() which means "everything on windows", so Windows + > Mingw + Cygwin Minor correction: currently isTargetWin32 means 32-bits (not "everything"), Windows + Mingw, not Cygwin. So this is actually even more confusing... > - isTargetWin64() is is...

On Thu, Mar 28, 2013 at 12:19 PM, Óscar Fuentes <ofv at wanadoo.es> wrote: > Eric Christopher <echristo at gmail.com> writes: > > > In my opinion none of these are irrelevant. Mingw and cygwin are separate > > ABIs that deal with some C compatibility (problems mentioned in this > thread > > are important here too) and give you the ability to work with low

...ble compiler be to the detriment of clang and >> llvm? No one is trying to break mingw here, merely add support for something > Just to make stuff clear: I just wanted proper naming which will be > non-confusing. Right now we have: > - isTargetWindows() which really means "msvc-compabile" > - isTargetWin32() which means "everything on windows", so Windows + > Mingw + Cygwin > - isTargetWin64() is is basically 64-bit version of isTargetWin32(), > but strictly speaking is slightly different > > This naming while being the historical artifact is ext...

...I have to say it's really much faster than Ext3. I don't have benchmarks, but for example, stuff like "make dep" on the linux kernel is much faster (even though I had enabled write cache when I was using ext3). So what's some highlights on Ext3 vs. ReiserFS? I guess the Ext2 compability is one large factor for using Ext3, but otherwise? _____________________________________________________ | Martin Eriksson <nitrax@giron.wox.org> | MSc CSE student, department of Computing Science | Umeå University, Sweden

My CentOS 5.4 box has a single HBA card with 2 ports connected to my Storage. 2 Luns are assigned to my HBA card. Under /dev instead of seeing 4 devices I can see 12 devices from sdb to sdm. I am using qlogic driver that is bulitin to the OS. Has any one seen this kind of situation? Paras -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL:

Eric Christopher <echristo at gmail.com> writes: > In my opinion none of these are irrelevant. Mingw and cygwin are separate > ABIs that deal with some C compatibility (problems mentioned in this thread > are important here too) and give you the ability to work with low level C > libraries on windows, but if you want true compatibility with the full > platform > those ABIs