tinycc-devel
[Top][All Lists]
Advanced

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: [Tinycc-devel] __fp_unordered_compare defined twice on Windows


From: Christian Jullien
Subject: Re: [Tinycc-devel] __fp_unordered_compare defined twice on Windows
Date: Sat, 7 Dec 2013 13:44:26 +0100

Sorry if doubled-posted but previous replied (with attachment) has not been
distributed.

-----Original Message-----
From: Christian Jullien [mailto:address@hidden 
Sent: samedi 7 décembre 2013 12:26
To: 'address@hidden'
Subject: RE: [Tinycc-devel] __fp_unordered_compare defined twice on Windows

Hi Rob,

This is the win32/includes/math.h from mod you can watch on
http://repo.or.cz/w/tinycc.git/blob/3676f61983ca65506186c5429fc85a8da6642f3e
:/win32/include/math.h
It seems this file has not been modified for several years.
I don't know why this issue appears only now?

Christian

-----Original Message-----
From: address@hidden
[mailto:address@hidden On Behalf Of Rob
Sent: samedi 7 décembre 2013 11:59
To: address@hidden
Subject: Re: [Tinycc-devel] __fp_unordered_compare defined twice on Windows

On Sat, 7 Dec 2013, Christian Jullien wrote:
> Hi x86/x64 Windows maintainers,
>  
> This morning, I chekouted the latest TCC version from mod to update tcc on
Windows (both x86/x64).
> It used to work flawlessly (my latest successful build was made on
October).
>  
> Using gcc, I now get an error because __fp_unordered_compare (long 
> double x, long double y) is defined twice in math.h
>  
> First time at line 690 __fp_unordered_compare (long double x, long 
> double y){ Second time at line 754 __fp_unordered_compare (long double 
> x, long double y){
>  
> In file included from bignum.c:13:
> In file included from openlisp.h:23:
> In file included from defs.h:219:
> f:/tinycc/win32/include/math.h:754: error: redefinition of
'__fp_unordered_compare'
> NMAKE : fatal error U1077: 'f:\tinycc\win32\tcc.EXE' : return code '0x1'

Can you attached the preprocessed source? I don't have Windows headers.
Sounds like it might be an inline vs static inline definition problem.

Thanks,
Rob




reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]