From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 29674 invoked by alias); 12 Nov 2014 13:16:34 -0000 Mailing-List: contact libffi-discuss-help@sourceware.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: libffi-discuss-owner@sourceware.org Received: (qmail 29663 invoked by uid 89); 12 Nov 2014 13:16:33 -0000 Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; auth=none X-Virus-Found: No X-Spam-SWARE-Status: No, score=-2.4 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,RP_MATCHES_RCVD,SPF_HELO_PASS,SPF_PASS autolearn=ham version=3.3.2 X-HELO: mx1.redhat.com Received: from mx1.redhat.com (HELO mx1.redhat.com) (209.132.183.28) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.93/v0.84-503-g423c35a) with (AES256-GCM-SHA384 encrypted) ESMTPS; Wed, 12 Nov 2014 13:16:32 +0000 Received: from int-mx10.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (int-mx10.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com [10.5.11.23]) by mx1.redhat.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id sACDGUaR011785 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=FAIL) for ; Wed, 12 Nov 2014 08:16:30 -0500 Received: from pike.twiddle.home (vpn1-4-158.ams2.redhat.com [10.36.4.158]) by int-mx10.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id sACDGTaa025004 for ; Wed, 12 Nov 2014 08:16:30 -0500 Message-ID: <54635DAB.3080800@redhat.com> Date: Wed, 12 Nov 2014 13:16:00 -0000 From: Richard Henderson User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:31.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/31.2.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: libffi-discuss@sourceware.org Subject: Re: [RFC] Proposal for m*vc build issue (#138) References: <20141112130755.GA24721@linux.vnet.ibm.com> In-Reply-To: <20141112130755.GA24721@linux.vnet.ibm.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-IsSubscribed: yes X-SW-Source: 2014/txt/msg00218.txt.bz2 On 11/12/2014 02:07 PM, Dominik Vogt wrote: > I've attached a patch implementing option 4 from here: > https://github.com/atgreen/libffi/issues/138 Please proof read the > patch and let me know what you think. It might be good to > specifically double check the detection of a compiler with complex > support using macros. Looks good to me. r~