This month's Index
Subject: Re: Removing non-CMake windows support (was Re: problems building under Windows)
Re: Removing non-CMake windows support (was Re: problems building under Windows)
From: Alexander Lamaison <swish_at_lammy.co.uk>
Date: Fri, 1 Jan 2016 15:10:17 +0000
On 31 Dec 2015 14:51, "George Garner (online)"
Did you try the CMake route? How did this compare?
> My main concern is the number of warnings. Many of the warnings appear to be benign warnings about the truncation of 64-bit to 32-bit data types. The warnings that concern me the most involve the signed/unsigned mismatches and what I consider the gratuitous use of signed data types. I would look at the code around each of these warnings and verify whether there is an arithmetic operation that could produce a negative number and no check for integer underflow.
The warnings are a known issue and exist because the integer types
There is a task on my to-do list to add a preprocessor option to