X-Recipient: archive-cygwin@delorie.com X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org From: "Dave Korn" To: References: <46F6C151.3070301@computer.org> <4725D1BA.C2D2ED8A@dessent.net> Subject: RE: llrint implementation in Cygwin Date: Mon, 29 Oct 2007 12:49:48 -0000 Message-ID: <033e01c81a2a$30ae3150$2e08a8c0@CAM.ARTIMI.COM> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: Microsoft Office Outlook 11 In-Reply-To: <4725D1BA.C2D2ED8A@dessent.net> Mailing-List: contact cygwin-help@cygwin.com; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: cygwin-owner@cygwin.com Mail-Followup-To: cygwin@cygwin.com Delivered-To: mailing list cygwin@cygwin.com On 29 October 2007 12:28, Brian Dessent wrote: > This is a very, very bad idea. MinGW uses a completely different and > incompatible C runtime (MSVCRT) and so any MinGW object that calls into > the runtime (e.g. malloc(), open(), printf(), etc) will crash and burn > hard when linked to the Cygwin runtime. It is simple blind luck that > llrint() is apparently a self-contained function that has no calls to > any C runtime support functions, but this is not a practical technique > in general. I don't think it was being advocated in general, but I think it's reasonable to assume that a pure const function like llrint isn't going to do anything wacky. cheers, DaveK -- Can't think of a witty .sigline today.... -- Unsubscribe info: http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple Problem reports: http://cygwin.com/problems.html Documentation: http://cygwin.com/docs.html FAQ: http://cygwin.com/faq/