[PATCH] support for mingw-w64

Torbjorn Granlund tg at gmplib.org
Fri Sep 11 11:49:07 CEST 2009

Ozkan Sezer <sezeroz at gmail.com> writes:

  On Fri, Sep 11, 2009 at 12:26 PM, Torbjorn Granlund <tg at gmplib.org> wrote:
  > Thanks for the GMP patch!
  > Comments:
  > * We unfortunately cannot use intptr_t unconditionally, since it is not
  >  available everywhere we want GMP to work; it is a C99 feature.
  >  I wonder if size_t could be used instead?  While perhaps not elegant,
  >  it should work.  Does anybody see any problem?
  Hmm, ssize_t would be a better choice, IMHO, for matched
  signedness, but ..
Is ssize_t standard?  Is signedness really depended upon?  (And what is
a signed pointer, anyway?)

  >  (Alternatively, we could define our own little type, gmp_intptr_t
  >  which we set up in gmp-impl.h.  There are some precedents in that
  >  file.)
  ..  this would surely be a much better solution.
Are you willing to implement and test it?

  > * Why is it necessarly to pass -std=c99 to gcc?
  >  Passing this flag to gcc might be a good idea for all configurations,
  >  but then it should better be done using a global feature test, perhaps
  >  via our _opt flags mechanism.  Setting a globally avaiblable flags for
  >  one platform seems wrong.
  Without c99 mode, gcc, rightfully, emits _a lot_ of warnings like:
  fib_table.c:12:1: warning: use of C99 long long integer constant
  .. which is because of long long.
  If you want to make it global for all targets, I have no problems
  with that at all.
It does?  I've used longlong loads of time and GCC has been silent like
a lamb.

  > Did you write this patch yourself?  It is large enough to be covered by
  Updated an old patch

Written by whom?

  > copyright law, meaning that the GNU project needs paperwork from its
  > authors.  This is a few minutes of work, but we need to protect the
  > legal status of GMP for the benefit of its users.
  I already did copyright paperwork for gcc and binutils
  with fsf.  Is it necessary doing it again for gmp, too?

If you have assign-future in effect but it does not include GMP, then it
needs to be amended.  (I don't think there is an "everything I produce"
assignment, which probably is a good thing.  :-)


More information about the gmp-devel mailing list