From: Yongwei Wu <wuy...@gm...> - 2015-06-02 05:06:20
|
On 2 June 2015 at 12:28, KHMan <kei...@gm...> wrote: > On 6/2/2015 11:32 AM, Yongwei Wu wrote: >> On 2 June 2015 at 03:01, KHMan wrote: >>> On 6/1/2015 11:25 AM, Yongwei Wu wrote: >>>> On 1 June 2015 at 10:22, KHMan wrote: >>>>> >>>>> On 6/1/2015 9:03 AM, マーズ ho han keng wrote: >>>>>> http://developers.slashdot.org/story/15/05/31/1311254/mingw-and- >>>>>> msvcrt-conflict-causes-floating-point-value-corruption >>>>> >>>>> And your point is? >>>>> >>>>> Blog posting linked to the Slashdot item is a LOT of rubbish. >>>>> >>>>> Don't assume that people who sound authoritative on blogs know >>>>> what they are doing. >>>> >>>> BTW, the blog reports a legitimate bug of MinGW, but the summary on >>>> Slashdot is less clear about where the problem is. >>> >>> The blog report has plenty of rubbish. Having said that... (and >>> the following is only my personal opinion and has nothing to do >>> with any MinGW developer, so flame me and not them) >>> >>> I disagree on calling it a bug, that is a simplistic tag. >>> >>> This is an impedance matching problem, the price of using a >>> compiler with System V ABI pedigree and trying to fit it into a >>> Microsoft world that always like to do things differently probably >>> for strategic and tactical reasons. It was always going to be messy. >> >> You are talking bullshit. If ostream cannot work with long double, >> then even disabling the corresponding operator<< would be a better >> solution. >> >> BTW, I have tested to confirm that the "unofficial" MinGW-w64 GCC does >> not have this issue. Do you really want people to say that the >> "official" distribution is inferior? > > My bad, you're right, I apologise. I got too far ahead of the > issue, heh. Someone missed __USE_MINGW_ANSI_STDIO while compiling > the compiler? > > As to your last sentence, as a user I'd say, to be perfectly > frank, let's not kid ourselves. The other projects have a freer > hand on Win32 API, have newer releases, progress, momentum. I look > at MinGW files on SF and see that gcc-4.8.1-4 (2013-10-11). Looks > like stasis. So yeah, MinGW gcc is inferior. That's not a bad > thing, it's just the way FLOSS projects can be, considering recent > activity and resources. Thank you for your frank post. I also looked up for some statistics: MinGW: 4.3 Stars (161) 1,598,041 Downloads (This Week) MinGW-w64: 4.8 Stars (87) 26,190 Downloads (This Week) MinGW is still more popular (by a huge margin), but MinGW-w64 is doing well with higher ranking. -- Wu Yongwei URL: http://wyw.dcweb.cn/ |