> Is that considered a mingw bug? Perhaps. I can't test right now: *if* VS has a long double type that is smaller, it is apparently an ABI violation for mingw to not follow VS. It appears that other people also consider it a bug: http://www.velocityreviews.com/forums/showpost.php?p=1514923&postcount=2 OTOH, they probably cannot change it without causing > Should we change the above union to a safer construct? No. tim_one changed it to be long double in r25454 to support some system that Dave Abrahams uses, so it needs to stay that way :-) However, we can certainly acknowledge that this is a bug in MingW, and special case it. Either introduce a symbolic type gchead_align_t which gets defined to just double on MingW, or put the #ifdef right into the structure. It might also be useful to assert that sizeof(gchead_align_t) is 8 or 16, and reject 12 as a value. The point is that we need the maximum alignment, and that certainly shouldn't be 12. Regards, Martin
RetroSearch is an open source project built by @garambo | Open a GitHub Issue
Search and Browse the WWW like it's 1997 | Search results from DuckDuckGo
HTML:
3.2
| Encoding:
UTF-8
| Version:
0.7.4