X-Recipient:	archive-cygwin AT delorie DOT com
DomainKey-Signature:	a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=sourceware.org; h=list-id
	:list-unsubscribe:list-subscribe:list-archive:list-post
	:list-help:sender:date:from:to:message-id:in-reply-to:subject
	:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding; q=dns; s=
	default; b=CqsM2N6iDoC0NmIh/CMMTt8Ssy7YPuQ319SVYBrscyDYT9Me+vgyi
	058l6UzGRS7GtpmERvg9XD2yPNGXGc7pxo65D+QqsyA6kR8n5mPtChd95Hgu8fk6
	WxWxK9xEcmbVj1gROW44ywCLrs6jYEEvvSFhZvXYnaT5MRkl/KXVzc=
DKIM-Signature:	v=1; a=rsa-sha1; c=relaxed; d=sourceware.org; h=list-id
	:list-unsubscribe:list-subscribe:list-archive:list-post
	:list-help:sender:date:from:to:message-id:in-reply-to:subject
	:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding; s=default;
	bh=qCehu2o/tHs2zRQxvcfTHCNzYLI=; b=IbuTmAWp4CIUqkzN/DTFryJiKrCC
	tTp96hYLrHTgXqheDQ7quqrO1o6YTrnEnm4SuOO13Aw7gWj0ABtIp08yV0SMXiaM
	EfNjVEZdgHqYp1ymDO0gJepTK6s4pW+IK1kFyDSYRwBkhZWyFqHNIz0p1MXSpPbH
	fiT8L98RFDWd+y8=
Mailing-List:	contact cygwin-help AT cygwin DOT com; run by ezmlm
List-Id:	<cygwin.cygwin.com>
List-Subscribe:	<mailto:cygwin-subscribe AT cygwin DOT com>
List-Archive:	<http://sourceware.org/ml/cygwin/>
List-Post:	<mailto:cygwin AT cygwin DOT com>
List-Help:	<mailto:cygwin-help AT cygwin DOT com>, <http://sourceware.org/ml/#faqs>
Sender:	cygwin-owner AT cygwin DOT com
Mail-Followup-To:	cygwin AT cygwin DOT com
Delivered-To:	mailing list cygwin AT cygwin DOT com
Authentication-Results:	sourceware.org; auth=none
X-Spam-SWARE-Status:	No, score=3.8 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_50,FREEMAIL_FROM,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE,RCVD_IN_JMF_BL autolearn=no version=3.3.1 spammy=H*UA:Win, H*M:JavaMail, H*UA:Zimbra, H*x:Zimbra
X-HELO:	smtp1-g21.free.fr
Date:	Mon, 12 Aug 2019 11:45:29 +0200 (CEST)
From:	falk DOT tannhauser AT free DOT fr
To:	cygwin AT cygwin DOT com
Message-ID:	<732305300.268416262.1565603129541.JavaMail.root@zimbra54-e10.priv.proxad.net>
In-Reply-To:	<1436640898.268382790.1565602671940.JavaMail.root@zimbra54-e10.priv.proxad.net>
Subject:	Re: Inefficient use of 64-bit addresses in Clang
MIME-Version:	1.0

References: <578eb489-9391-9009-82ad-676eeb4c1c92 AT agner DOT org>
In-Reply-To: <578eb489-9391-9009-82ad-676eeb4c1c92 AT agner DOT org>

Could the different behaviour between Cygwin and Linux simply be due to different Clang versions?
The current version under Cygwin is 5.0.1, while the latest version available under Linux
appears to be 8.0.1 .

Falk

--
Problem reports:       http://cygwin.com/problems.html
FAQ:                   http://cygwin.com/faq/
Documentation:         http://cygwin.com/docs.html
Unsubscribe info:      http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple

- Raw text -