Well, I am, for one... but I think it would be foolish to drop support for the 'official' windows compiler.
OTOH, I like the idea of just supplying a spoofed config.h - comes in at just the level of irony that's fitting in the situation.
cheers Miller
On Wed, Jan 16, 2008 at 05:00:11PM -0500, Hans-Christoph Steiner wrote:
On Jan 16, 2008, at 1:26 PM, zmoelnig@iem.at wrote:
Quoting Russell Bryant russell@russellbryant.net:
Yeah, that sounds like a better check than the custom MSW define.
If you wanted to take it a step further, it would be pretty trivial to add a check for snprintf to the configure script. That way, when building Pd for .Net or whatever (which I assume uses some other build system), the appropriate HAVE_SNPRINTF define will not be present.
the only problem with that i see is, that when building with .NET you usually do not do configure (once you have installed all the (gnu)tools to be able to run configure, you probably will want to use gcc instead of the .NET compiler)
Who's using the MS compilers? We would save ourselves a lot of effort and make the code cleaner if we used gcc/autoconf on all platforms. According to Thomas Grill, gcc's code is comparable in terms of optimization to MSVC.
.hc
one solution (which i use and which i don't really like) to this is to have a non-generated configMSW.h.
btw, is there a way to specify at compile-time which file to include? something like:
#define CONFIG_H_FILE "config.h"
#ifdef CONFIG_H_FILE # include CONFIG_H_FILE #endif
(this won't work, but is there something similar?)
fgmasd.r IOhannes
This message was sent using IMP, the Internet Messaging Program.
PD-dev mailing list PD-dev@iem.at http://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/pd-dev
http://at.or.at/hans/
PD-dev mailing list PD-dev@iem.at http://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/pd-dev