This is a very simple asm snippet (two instructions) -- have you considered using the gcc ASM syntax instead of relying on unoptimized code? I'm pretty sure that gcc under MinGW uses the AT&T asm syntax; this is a pretty good primer: https://www.ibm.com/developerworks/library/l-ia/index.html I *think* this translates to: asm("fld %1; fistp %0;" : "=r"(x_int) : "r"(x_dbl));

(In reply to Adam Roach [:abr] from comment #2) > This is a very simple asm snippet (two instructions) -- have you considered > using the gcc ASM syntax instead of relying on unoptimized code? Nope, but I'll give it a shot!

Tom, I see you've filed and attached a bunch of patches so that WebRTC code compiles with MinGW, but haven't requested a review, should I look at the patches and assign relevant reviewer, or do you plan to do that yourself?

(In reply to Paul Adenot (:padenot) from comment #4) > Tom, I see you've filed and attached a bunch of patches so that WebRTC code > compiles with MinGW, but haven't requested a review, should I look at the > patches and assign relevant reviewer, or do you plan to do that yourself? The patches are still WIPs overall. I need to get a complete build working, and then go through all the patches and make sure they work for all the not-MinGW builds, and then I can request a review. I had spoken with :abr previously so I planned on bugging him but I'm happy to have the patches get reviewed by whoever your team thinks is best!