[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Windows 64 port
From: |
Eli Zaretskii |
Subject: |
Re: Windows 64 port |
Date: |
Thu, 01 Mar 2012 06:03:45 +0200 |
> Date: Wed, 29 Feb 2012 19:34:37 -0800
> From: Paul Eggert <address@hidden>
> Cc: address@hidden, address@hidden,
> address@hidden
>
> On 02/29/2012 01:24 PM, Eli Zaretskii wrote:
> > I see many changes that qualify existing
> > declarations with `const', which cannot possibly be wrong.
>
> It's not an issue of whether the patch is *wrong*.
> It's whether the patch is *needed*.
That's not what you originally claimed. You said many changes are to
pacify the Microsoft compiler's bogus warnings. There's nothing bogus
about using the right data type or declare a variable or an argument
`const' when it is.
I agree that these changes should go in a separate commit. But then I
asked several times to do the same for texinfo.tex when you sync with
gnulib, and you declined. So I guess Fabrice is not the only one who
does that...
- Re: Windows 64 port, (continued)
- Re: Windows 64 port, Aurélien, 2012/02/24
- Re: Windows 64 port, Fabrice Popineau, 2012/02/28
- Re: Windows 64 port, Paul Eggert, 2012/02/28
- Re: Windows 64 port, Fabrice Popineau, 2012/02/28
- Re: Windows 64 port, Eli Zaretskii, 2012/02/29
- Re: Windows 64 port, Paul Eggert, 2012/02/29
- Re: Windows 64 port, Eli Zaretskii, 2012/02/29
- Re: Windows 64 port, Paul Eggert, 2012/02/29
- Re: Windows 64 port, Eli Zaretskii, 2012/02/29
- Re: Windows 64 port, Paul Eggert, 2012/02/29
- Re: Windows 64 port,
Eli Zaretskii <=
- Re: Windows 64 port, Eli Zaretskii, 2012/02/20
- Re: Windows 64 port, AJMR, 2012/02/26
- Re: Windows 64 port, Eli Zaretskii, 2012/02/26
- Re: Windows 64 port, AJMR, 2012/02/27
- Re: Windows 64 port, Fabrice Popineau, 2012/02/28
- Re: Windows 64 port, Paul Eggert, 2012/02/29
Re: Windows 64 port, Richard Stallman, 2012/02/20